Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PWLLHELI HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the youth training scheme.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the youth training scheme.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): I am greatly encouraged by the progress of the scheme to date, and in particular by the co-operation shown by employers, local authorities, trade unions and others.
Over 250,000 young people have now taken up places within the scheme, and I am confident that the undertaking to offer a place to all unemployed 16-year-olds by Christmas will be met.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the problem of providing off-the-job training in rural areas is causing some difficulty? Will he undertake to look at ways to fund that, or find other ways in which it can be done, because there are a number of rural areas where off-the-job training is not readily available and the schemes are in danger of falling down because of that lack of support?

Mr. King: I take note of that serious point. Certainly part of our undertaking was that it is intended entirely as a national scheme, and we want to make sure that certain areas are not disadvantaged.

Mr. Adley: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new job.

Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the new Secretary of State is better than the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)?

Mr. Adley: I am satisfied with both. If the hon. Gentleman wants to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, he can do so. Is it not true that although there has been some criticism of the scheme most people see it as new and

exciting, and that the concentration on training is particularly important? Is there not now a slight upturn in youth employment figures, which itself is an encouraging sign?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind welcome. I can say more easily as one who was less involved with the start of the scheme that what has been achieved is remarkable. It is most encouraging to have reached a figure, after such a recent start, of 250,000 young people already in the scheme with more places available, and now with the faster take-up in the past month. With the training component, it is a substantial improvement on anything that has been done before.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware of the widespread resentment among young people towards a scheme that many of them regard as a device to reduce the unemployment figures? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that for the first time this autumn the majority of 16 and 17-year-olds who left school have not got real jobs? When will this sacrifice of a whole generation of young people end?

Mr. King: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to approach in such a sour and ungracious way something that has the backing and support of trade unions and employers throughout the country. To add to the concern and misunderstanding about the scheme among young people, many of whom do not distinguish it from the previous schemes, on which this new scheme is a great improvement, in no way helps the cause of better training for young people. I hope that, on reflection, he will feel able to give it his backing.

Mr. Haselhurst: Have the well-publicised reservations of one or two trade unions in the public sector in any way impeded the realisation of the goal to which my right hon. Friend has referred of providing a training opportunity for everyone by Christmas?

Mr. King: There have been difficulties with one or two unions, but I do not want to dwell on that. I hope that the talks that are now taking place—I know that the MSC has had discussions with certain unions as well—will remove those obstacles. I pay tribute to the vast majority of the trade union movement, which has played a full part in the scheme.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what proportion of young people on the scheme he expects to get jobs at the end of their 12 months? Will he confirm the estimates given by a previous Minister of State in his Department that at least one in two would be unemployed at the end?

Mr. King: I obviously hope that the maximum number will get jobs. The merits of the scheme are that people coming on to the job market at the end of the scheme will then have had training, which many of them previously did not have, and be that much better equipped for the jobs that are available. I remind the hon. Lady that, even with the present high level of unemployment, there is still a tragic number of skill shortages.

Mr. Latham: As there is a substantial number of unfilled vacancies on the scheme, and as no one wants to see the money returned to the Treasury, will my right hon. Friend consider widening the scheme to include those aged 17 or, indeed, over so that the vacancies can be filled?

Mr. King: I am certainly concerned that we should get the most benefit from the scheme. I do not wish to prejudge, at this stage, the numbers that will finally be involved in the scheme. Although the figures for earlier months were a little below forecasts, my information is that for the latest month, October, the figure is rather better than our forecast. Therefore, we may see a rather rapid change in the figures.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Secretary of State ensure that this voluntary scheme is not converted into a compulsory scheme by the withdrawal of social security benefit from those who refuse to join it?

Mr. King: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench. I think that a bit of double banking is in order, given that he has responsibility for both youth training and employment. However, the scheme provides that if adequate and reasonable proposals are made, there is a power to withhold benefit. I do not believe that that is offensive at a time when it is most important that young people should have an opportunity to train.

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of school leavers aged 16 years of age in Liverpool are taking part in the youth training scheme.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): By the end of October 43 per cent. of the 16-year-old school leavers had entered the youth training scheme in the city of Liverpool.

Mr. Alton: Is the Minister aware that in Liverpool alone more than 5,000 people under the age of 18 are currently registered unemployed and that many of them are cynical about the youth training scheme, which they see as coming from the same stable as YOPs, WEPS, TOPS and all the others. The only growth industry appears to be in acronyms. Does not the Minister accept that this generation of "The Boys from the Black Stuff' deserves more than the possibility of 50 years on the dole? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that although some of the schemes can play a role in helping to alleviate unemployment, they are not long-term solutions?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that for the first time in Liverpool — as in every other part of the country — the 16-year-old school leaver has an opportunity to train. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that the fact that 2,600 young people have already joined up means that they are voting with their feet, I do not know what he does think.

Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is still a worrying deficiency in the number of young people joining the scheme? One of the major reasons for that can be found in the Left-wing propaganda that is making the young cynical, and that is doing no service to those who wish to retain some form of training in Liverpool.

Mr. Morrison: I certainly agree that some very Left-wing members of the public give the scheme, quite unnecessarily, a bad name. However, more than 250,000 youngsters have joined up, and that demonstrates the way in which they have voted with their feet.

Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister realise that his ministerial team may well go down in history as having

created the best trained dole queue in Europe? Can the hon. Gentleman explain how he intends to clear up the anomaly whereby 16 and 17-year-olds—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the question is about Liverpool.

Mr. Nellist: How does the Minister intend to clear up the anomaly whereby 16 and 17-year-olds in school, or in receipt of supplementary benefit — in Liverpool or elsewhere — qualify for free prescriptions, while those 16 and 17-year-olds on youth training schemes do not?

Mr. Morrison: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue. Those 16 and 17-year-olds on the youth training scheme receive an allowance of £25. Therefore, there is no reason why they should receive supplementary benefit.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is it not a condemnation of the Government and their economic policies that they have nothing better to offer the thousands of school leavers on Merseyside and in my constituency than life on the dole or an inadequate youth training scheme?

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Gentleman were to suggest to the parents of those on the scheme in his constituency that it should be withdrawn, I am sure that he would meet with a certain amount of resentment.

Health and Safety at Work Legislation (Youth Training)

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consider extending the health and safety at work legislation to those on youth training schemes.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act already covers those on youth training schemes. The Health and Safety Commission has always advised that this coverage protects trainees effectively. Nevertheless, I have welcomed the initiative of the HSC to amend the law so that these trainees are brought under exactly the same section of the Act as employees. I have asked for this to be done as soon as possible.

Mr. Fatchett: Why is there a need to amend the law if trainees are already covered? How will the hon. Gentleman enforce the changes to which he has referred, given that this Government have reduced the number of health and safety and factory inspectors since coming into office?

Mr. Gummer: The law is to be changed in that way only because several Opposition Members said that there was some confusion. We want to make the position clear to everybody. I am sure that Opposition Members will be very pleased about that. That is why the Health and Safety Commission recommended the amendment. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the resources available to the Health and Safety Executive are greater now in real terms than when the Conservative party came to office.

Mr. Marlow: As some health and safety regulations are so complex and complicated that they take up management time and inhibit the employment of more young and other people, what will my hon. Friend do the ensure that the regulations are simplified?

Mr. Gummer: We constantly ensure that, as far as costs allow, the regulations are simple. However, in the last resort we must defend the health and safety of people, whether they are at work as trainees or employees.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency two youth trainees were recently involved in fatal accidents? In one case the firm concerned was fined £800. The maximum fine is apparently £1,000. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that sum is wholly inadequate?

Mr. Gummer: None of us can hear of such a case without feeling considerable sadness. Obviously, I have looked at that case very carefully. There is some disquiet, of course, about the possibility that the penalties, and the way in which they are imposed, are insufficient. I am considering that point.

Mr. John Smith: Would it not be more appropriate for the Minister to admit frankly to the House that there is a deficiency in the legislation which, because of certain tragic incidents, such as that just referred to, he now feels compelled to put right? Would it not be better if the hon. Gentleman were to adopt proper standards in dealing with the House, although that might not be appropriate in his role as chairman of the Conservative party? The hon. Gentleman should make a frank admission when there is a deficiency in the legislation and act quickly to put it right instead of pretending that everything has been OK all along.

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has only recently come to his position. If he had attended our earlier debates he would know that we have discussed the matter at length. If he reads the report of those debates, I think he will regard some of his remarks as unworthy. To answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman direct, the same arrangements existed under the youth opportunities programme, which was brought into operation by his colleagues. At that time there was never any question of difficulty over this matter. I am telling the House the truth, and will continue to do so. I am advised by the Health and Safety Commission that trainees are properly covered at the moment, but, to meet the difficulty raised by some Opposition Members, the regulations are being changed. That is a perfectly reasonable and honourable thing to say.

Wages Councils

Mr. John Townend: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any further proposals for disbanding wages councils.

Mr. Tom King: Our obligations under International Labour Convention 26 preclude the abolition of the wages council system before June 1986. All options will be considered when the Government are free to act.

Mr. Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it seems a little strange that a Government who have a basic belief in the operation of the free market should retain wages councils, which restrict the free working of the labour market, prevent people from pricing themselves back into work and destroy jobs for young people? In view of the difficulties over the International Labour Organisation, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the Government will seriously consider abolishing such bodies within the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. King: I am certainly aware of my hon. Friend's strong feelings on this issue. I am also aware of both sides

of the argument about wages councils. It is obviously of concern to the Government if our initiatives to help young people to find jobs are sometimes frustrated by apparently higher settlements on the part of wages councils than might be considered reasonable in the circumstances. That is why I have said we shall consider all the options.

Mr. Ashley: Is it not true that the Government are trying to make Britain more competitive overseas by forcing low-paid workers to accept even lower wages? Instead of discriminating against such workers, why do not the Government restore exchange controls so that everyone — and not only the poor — can share the burden?

Mr. King: I regret that I could not quite follow the trend of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I am not sure how his suggestion would help the matter.
The problem is serious. We want to ensure the best opportunities for youngsters to find jobs. I hope that the House will consider the issue objectively, and not from a prejudiced position.

Mr. Budgen: At the general election, did not the Conservative party promise to ensure that wages councils would not reduce job opportunities by obliging employees to charge unrealistic wages, or employers to offer them? Would not the only way to honour that promise be immediately to abolish those councils?

Mr. Hardy: Bring back slavery.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) would not wish the Government to step aside from their treaty or other obligations in international affairs. I can only repeat the answer that I gave.
My hon. Friend is aware that the wages councils are independent bodies and, therefore, are capable of reaching their own conclusions. As recent events have shown, the Government are not always happy with their determinations. I repeat that the Government will consider all the options when they are free to act.

Mr. Penhaligon: Although there may be some argument for wages councils reform among younger workers, is there not also an overwhelming argument that wages councils provide the basic principle of protection for one of the most vulnerable sections of our society?

Mr. King: I am concerned about the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. However, I also noticed the quotation from Winston Churchill in the letter column of The Times this week.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister confirm that the humanitarian principle involved in the establishment of wages councils was the protection of groups of workers who could not organise collectively to defend themselves? Notwithstanding the mean and petty campaign by some of the Minister's hon. Friends, will he admit that nothing has changed and that some workers still need the protection of wages councils? Does he accept that the real problem is to enforce wages councils' awards?

Mr. King: I understand the arguments, some of which must be taken into account when considering the options and the problems that must be reconciled.

Greater London

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment which five industrial sectors in Greater London have lost the largest numbers of employees since May 1979; and if he will indicate the job losses in each sector.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): The five groups of industries whose employment figures have fallen most in the five years between June 1978 and June 1983 are:

number


Engineering and allied industries
81,000


Transport and Communication
52,000


Distributive trades
40,000


Other manufacturing industries
33,000


Construction
31,000

Further details will be circulated later in the Official Report.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister accept that, with London's reputation for prosperity, those figures are disastrous? Do they not demonstrate the effects of the Government's attempt to introduce into employment the free play of market forces? Is there not a good case for a positive interventionist policy by the GLC and the London boroughs if the Government are not willing to introduce that themselves?

Mr. Clark: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment or election—I am never sure which—to a shadow responsibility.
I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's case. More than 170,000 people in London have been placed in employment by the employment service since April this year. The flow of employment in and out of jobs is much faster in London than in many other parts of the country.
As for the hon. Gentleman's recommendation for an interventionist policy, I draw his attention to the various schemes with which, as an energetic London Member, he must be familiar.

Mr. Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that the best intervention to help employment in London would be rate capping and rate control? Does he agree that the large rate increases imposed by the GLC, ILEA and Greenwich are a penalty on employment that needs to be removed?

Mr. Clark: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One factor that is driving firms—especially small firms—out of the GLC area is the enormous rates increases promulgated by Labour councils.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on criteria for appointment as youth training scheme management agencies.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Managing agents are required to demonstrate that they meet the agreed criteria for the content and design of schemes as well as having the ability to deliver the training programme proposed.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that there is a growing and grave suspicion about some of the privatized

management agencies? Is he further aware that in the north-west one cosy, family company is reputed to be running an organisation worth £30 million of business? Should not the money be spent on training rather than on lining people's pockets?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will know and appreciate that all schemes, from whatever source of managing agent, must meet certain criteria and be approved by the area manpower boards. I agree that when using large sums of taxpayers' money it is important to ensure that they are properly supervised.

Mr. Iain Mills: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the criticism about mode A places has been politically inspired? Is he aware that, in Meriden, getting the MSC to approve a managing agency is a difficult and critical business? Is not that practice right? Are not the achievements of mode A places for YTS trainees in the midlands an excellent example of the scheme?

Mr. Morrison: I agree that much of the criticism has been politically inspired. The area manpower boards are solicitous when considering proposals put to them, and rightly so.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister agree that proper regard to health and safety should be a criterion, especially in view of the youngsters who have been killed or injured on the schemes? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the recent court case following the fatal accident referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), a director of the company found guilty of negligence had the brass neck to turn up at the court wearing a Tory party badge? He was a Tory party candidate at the general election.

Mr. Morrison: The health and safety aspects of the scheme are crucial. The hon. Gentleman heard what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier.

Mrs. Rumbold: Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's caveats about management agencies, is it not important that there should be a mix of private employment agencies with those set up in concert with local authorities?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am pleased that a substantial number of private employers have come forward as managing agents. Some of the training will be carried out by private concerns. That is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Sheerman: How many management agencies under the old YOP scheme failed to apply successfully to be management agencies under the new scheme? Under the old scheme, were not some of them poor employers and trainers, who used youngsters as cheap labour?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question because there were no management agencies under the YOP scheme. There were a significant number of sponsors. There are approximately 4,000 management agencies under the youth training scheme, which include many of the sponsors under the old YOP scheme.

Greater London

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in Greater London; and what was the corresponding figure for May 1979.

Mr. Gummer: On 13 October 1983 there were 351,800 unemployed claimants in Greater London; the corresponding figure for May 1979 was 127,800. These figures exclude school leavers and are seasonally adjusted.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that those are dismal figures? Will he comment on the more positive aspect of the employment scene in London, that being the policy followed by the GLC — especially through the Greater London enterprise board and the Greater London training board?

Mr. Gummer: It is bad that so many people in London are unemployed. It is, in some senses, also bad that the hon. Gentleman still suggests that the GLC might save one or two jobs through its various schemes. That does not make up for the many thousands of jobs lost because of its high rates and ridiculous Socialist plans.

Sir Anthony Grant: Would not the best contribution to employment in Greater London, and probably everywhere else, be to abolish lunatic councils such as the GLC and put County Hall to a useful purpose.

Mr. Gummer: This Government intend to make that great contribution as soon as possible.

Lancashire

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total numbers of unemployed within the county of Lancashire in May 1979 and September 1983.

Mr. Alan Clark: In May 1979 there were 29,735 people registered as unemployed in Lancashire. In September 1983 the number of unemployed claimants in the county was 75,358. The figures include school leavers and are not seasonally adjusted.

Mr. Straw: Does the Minister agree that it is an appalling indictment of the Government that unemployment in Lancashire has trebled over the past four years? If, as the Minister claims, high rates in London have led to job losses, how does he explain the loss of jobs in Lancashire, where rates have been among the lowest in the country?

Mr. Clark: The House knows that the hon. Gentleman was author of the Labour party's "Programme for Recovery", but that never saw the light of day, which may give him a vested interest in such questions. The un-employment rate in Lancashire is only 13·2 per cent.—0·2 per cent. above the national average.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the excessive rates levied by Lancashire county council, in some part in supplementary rates, there are still stories of success, for example Dainichi-Sykes Ltd., which has just obtained a contract from Jaguar Cars that will double the number of people employed by the company in a high technology area such as robotics?

Mr. Clark: Indeed there are, and 9,000 people benefit from the young workers' scheme in the constituency of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), for which he should be grateful.

Mr. Litherland: Has the Minister studied the Youthaid report, which states that 50 per cent. of 18-year-olds in this country are on the dole and that that percentage is even

higher in the inner city areas of Manchester? Does that not contradict what was said today about youth aid? Does he agree that the future of young people is being sold out by this Government?

Mr. Clark: It is an intractable and distressing problem, but one to which the Government pay great attention, both through the young workers' scheme and the youth training schemes. These schemes are operating effectively in inner Manchester, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Tracey: Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill-becomes the Labour party to lecture the Government on unemployment since, on Friday last when the House discussed the important subject of small business, one of the greatest providers of new jobs — [Interruption.] — only three Opposition Members turned up?

Mr. Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend and certainly the aversion that the Labour party has for small business and the power that it has to generate employment- and prosperity is a standing curiosity in the House.

Noise Protection

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the existing rules for protection of workers from noise.

Mr. Gummer: We are giving full support to the Health and Safety Commission in its campaign to alert industry to the dangers of noise. We intend to introduce legislation and are pursuing this with our European partners.

Mr. Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while protecting workers' hearing from noise is important, so is protecting the jobs of those workers and the competitiveness and existence of the industries in which they work? In discussions with our EC colleagues, will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will press for a limit no higher than 90 dB, which is a limit with which our industry can cope?

Mr. Gummer: I have made clear during the campaign, in which I have taken a particular interest, that we are determined to do something about the level of noise in industry and the damage done to hearing. That can be done, first, by bringing people to an understanding of it. One of our problems is that people do not take noise or deafness seriously enough. That can also be done without damaging the competitive edge of British industry and I shall see to it that the terms proposed in the directive are changed considerably.

Mr. Concannon: Will the Minister give more priority to legislation on noise because of the anomalies in industry? Some of us know from experience about noise, especially in the mining industry. The new machinery that is coming in is creating great anomalies.

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman has a good point. We have already changed the terms of compensation to take some of those anomalies in hand and to reduce the number of years needed to qualify for compensation. We are considering other ways in which to extend the help that can be given. However, in the end the answer is not compensation but protection of workers from noise. That can be done.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my hon. Friend agree that the setting of unrealistic noise targets for machine tool


manufacturers will not achieve anything? I refer particularly to EC regulations which will aim at the 85 dB level? Some machine manufacturers find such a target unrealistic and unattainable and believe that this will make their products uncompetitive with overseas suppliers.

Mr. Gummer: It is clear that we must have attainable and enforceable levels. There is no doubt that the present suggestions of the European Commission are not satisfactory to this country. At the same time, if, with our European partners, we can produce satisfactory answers, this is a benefit that we can gain through our membership of the European Community.

Mr. John Evans: Does the Minister accept that those hon. Members who have worked in industries such as shipbuilding, ship repairing and heavy engineering regard the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) as disgraceful? Does the Minister recognise that hundreds of thousands of workers in this country suffer impediments in their hearing because of their industrial background? Does he accept that if there is any trouble getting the legislation through the House because of his hon. Friend's attitude he will be able to rely on the Opposition to get it through?

Mr. Gummer: I do accept that damage is done to people, and that is why I take a personal interest in campaigning in this way. At the same time, there is no use having measurements and levels that cannot be enforced. My right hon. and hon. Friends are asking for levels that can be enforced. We will manage to do both what the hon. Gentleman wants and what they want.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed at the last count.

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures.

Mr. Tom King: In October the total number of unemployed was 3,093,998 — a fall of 73,441 from September — and the seasonally adjusted total — excluding school leavers — fell by 10,000 from September, the second fall in three months. While it is always unwise to put too much emphasis on one month's figures, I note rising vacancies, less short-time working and more overtime, which all support the Government's view of a steady improvement in the economy.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that the quarter of a million young people already on the youth training scheme are really a quarter of a million young unemployed on a training course? Is it true that if those people, who are receiving £25 a week, which is basically unemployment pay, were added to the drastic figures that the Minister has just given us, we would see no fall in unemployment? There has been a massive increase, which is getting worse.

Mr. King: That is the most disgraceful comment about the youth training scheme that I have heard in this House. I thought that at one time the hon. Gentleman had some connection with education and that he would therefore understand the importance of young people having some training and fitting them better for the challenges of a modern, technological society. The hon. Gentleman's

remarks will not be shared — indeed they will be condemned—by the vast majority of trade unions which are willingly co-operating in this scheme.

Mr. Parry: Although I welcome the small fall in the Merseyside figure, may I ask whether the Minister is aware of the thousands of declared redundancies that are in the pipeline for Merseyside, which will push the figure considerably higher? What are the right hon. Gentleman's plans for positively reducing unemployment on Mersey-side and in our other regions? Do the Government have a policy?

Mr. King: It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Government have no policy. Against the background of the improving economic position I have been able to announce a fall in unemployment. It is interesting to note the outrage with which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) greeted the announcement that 73,500 more people are now at work than in the previous month. It is by the reduction of inflation and by ensuring that British industry remains competitive and gets its share of world markets that we have the best hope of improving the employment position of this country. That is what the Government are determined to do.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the take-up of the community programme? If not, does he have any further steps to take in that regard?

Mr. King: I am encouraged by the take-up of the programme. It is going extremely well and I hope that we shall shortly be able to make an announcement about the future of it.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister accept that the current unemployment figures are distorted and possibly underestimated by the fact that local areas are still working off the 1979 employment census? In the light of a parliamentary answer given to my predecessor to the effect that the local area results for the 1981 employment census would be produced this year, can the Minister say when he intends to publish those results.

Mr. King: Not without notice, but I will look into that. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to make the point that, by whatever measurement it is taken, unemployment is too high, I hope that every hon. Member will agree with him. It is the Government's determination to get that figure down by strengthening the economy and ensuring that there are again real jobs in the economy. I am proud that my first statement on unemployment to the House has enabled me to announce such a substantial reduction in the figures.

Mr. Needham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the overall size of the British labour market is increasing and that the percentage of those employed in that market now compares favourably with many of our EC competitors?

Mr. King: The evidence is that there were in the last quarter, for the first time in any quarter for four years, more people at work than in the previous quarter. It is significant to note a further increase in vacancies; there is now some evidence that there are about half a million vacancies to take into account, and that is a steadily rising figure.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree, no matter how passionate his concern may be, that we must expect that a majority, and in some areas an enormous majority, of the young people now on youth training schemes will become unemployed in less than 12 months? While the YTS has bought the Government a little time, what do they propose to do about 17-year olds in less than 12 months?

Mr. King: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not keep up the criticism of the YTS. It ha:3 done a lot more than buy time. It has already provided for 250,000 youngsters a chance of training that the vast majority of them would never have had. I remind him of the words of a former Labour Prime Minister, that higher inflation followed by higher unemployment had teen the history of the last 20 years. We have been determined to get inflation down, and now we see some prospects for more jobs.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the logic of the case put by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is that all young people undergoing training are really unemployed, that might extend to all at universities and elsewhere? Does it also mean that every time the Government introduce a measure to train young people it will be seen by Labour Members as not helping the unemployed?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I am glad to note that yet again the hon. Member for Hillsborough holds a view which, fortunately, the vast majority of sensible people in Britain do not hold.

Mr. John Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most disturbing features of recent unemployment statistics and projections is that more than 1 million people in Britain look as though they are likely to be unemployed for a very long time indeed? In that circumstance, will the Government now act on the recommendation of their social security advisory committee and give supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed? Is he also aware that many of these people are in very poor circumstances and have large families and that the payment would involve as much as £10 per week? Does he realise that it is not now a matter of a political or economic decision, but a simple matter of morality so as to do justice for the long-term unemployed?

Mr. King: That question is not primarily for me but for the Secretary of State for Social Services. I note what the right hon. Gentleman says and of course we are concerned about the position of the long-term unemployed. We now have more than 600,000 people covered by special employment measures, along with the youth training scheme. That is some evidence of our determination to help with these problems.

Northern Region

Dr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to relieve unemployment in the Northern region.

Mr. Gummer: The unemployment problems of the Northern region can be tackled effectively only if industry in the United Kingdom generally becomes more competitive and sells more goods and services.

Dr. Clark: What hope can the 225,000 people currently out of work in the Northern region expect from the Government's policies, and when will those policies begin to work?

Mr. Gummer: They can expect from the Government continued pressure to bring down inflation, to make us more competitive, so that we can sell the goods and services, which alone produces the jobs. There is no hope other than that.

Mr. Bell: Is the Minister aware that on Teesside the rate of unemployment is 18 per cent. and that the area is based on shipbuilding, steel and chemicals? Is he telling the people of Cleveland that they have no future because the future of Britain lies in the service industries?

Mr. Gummer: I am saying that in a situation as serious as the one to which our attention is drawn the only chance of getting jobs is to produce goods and services for which people will pay. There is no alternative to that, unhappy though that may be.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later this afternoon I shall be going to Bonn to attend one of the regular series of Anglo-German bilateral meetings.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If, as the Prime Minister constantly tells us, the National Health Service is safe in her hands, why does she not feel safe in its hands?

The Prime Minister: I take a view which I should have thought would commend itself to the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure is anxious that waiting lists should be reduced. I pay my full whack to the National Health Service and I make no demands on it.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend accept that even those of us who are strong supporters of the Anglo-American alliance will be greatly concerned if, on top of everything else, the American President were to sell arms to Argentina before that country had formally concluded its hostilities with us?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We should be greatly concerned indeed if the United States were to sell arms to Argentina before Argentina had made it perfectly clear that hostilities were at an end. It has not yet done so.

Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the Prime Minister's prudent warnings to the American Government of the consequence of retaliatory action in the Lebanon. Did the right hon. Lady make it clear to the American Government in her contacts yesterday that British troops would be withdrawn if any retaliatory action were undertaken?

The Prime Minister: First I must make it clear, with regard both to the tone and content of newspaper reports of the breakfast meeting yesterday, that I just do not recognise some of them as relating to the meeting that I had—and I was, after all, there the whole time.
The United States is of course entitled to take measures of self-defence. That is precisely why I sent six Buccaneers to Cyprus — to be there should our


multinational force need that support—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have agreed with that. As for pulling out, that is a hypothetical question at the moment. We should need to be in contact with all our partners in the multinational force before such a decision could be taken.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the situation has changed dramatically and tragically since the time, for instance, when the Buccaneers were committed to defending and assisting our troops in the Lebanon? If the right hon. Lady is not prepared to make it clear that withdrawal would be the consequence of a retaliatory attack, what means would she be prepared to use to enforce her judgment that retaliatory action could jeopardise the reconciliation talks in Geneva as well as the situation of British troops in the multinational force? What means would she employ to back up her own judgment?

The Prime Minister: I have just said that we put Buccaneers in Cyprus in case our forces should feel that they need extra forces for self-defence. The position has changed since then. One tragedy has been what happened to the United States, French and Israeli forces. The right hon. Gentleman would take the same view as I do, that these were terrorist atrocities of appalling proportions and we sympathise with all who were involved. Our troops in that multinational force are carrying out their original terms of reference, which are set out in a Command Paper. Should there be any change, we would have to consult other members of the multinational force. The multinational force is doing a good job. Its work of patrolling and guarding where the peace talks were taking place is much appreciated. At the moment, I see no reason to change that unilaterally.

Mr. Kinnock: I must press the Prime Minister. While we recognise that, on the basis of their original deployment, the British troops are doing the fine job that the right hon. Lady mentions, the change in the deployment of American forces, and the awful tragedy of the deaths caused by the bombing, alter the atmosphere. What will the right hon. Lady's attitude be towards the American Government if they proceed, as many responsible commentators and analysts believe will be the case, to consider a retaliatory attack? British lives may be at stake.

The Prime Minister: Any members of any multinational force are entitled to take measures in self-defence. I have made that clear to the right hon. Gentleman. He then proceeded to consider an event that has not occurred, and therefore I cannot answer the question. The British members of the multinational force are doing a good job, which is much appreciated in the Lebanon. They went into Beirut with other members of the multinational force to re-establish the authority of the Lebanese Government and armed forces. It is important that nothing should be done to prejudice or hinder the reconciliation talks, which are vital if Lebanon is to be restored as a fully independent country.

Sir Hugh Fraser: Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman considered — I hope that my right hon. Friend can reinforce this view—that critical though the middle east position may be, a Syrian takeover of Lebanon would be worse? That is one of the dangers that face us.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will agree that the position in Lebanon is serious. There is almost a de facto partition, with the multinational forces around Beirut and the terrible battles in Tripoli between the different factions of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. I believe that I am expressing the general feelings of many right hon. and hon. Members when I hope that nothing will be done to increase the turmoil or put at risk the reconciliation talks taking place.

Mr. Steel: Does the Prime Minister agree that the withdrawal of the Syrian and Israeli forces from the Lebanon may be achieved only in the context of a wider middle east settlement? Does the right hon. Lady agree that such a conference should be called?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, for a long time we have been proceeding towards a general settlement of the middle eastern problem in the wider Israeli-Arab context. We shall wait a long time if we wait for that settlement before sorting out the Lebanese problem. We must try to seek reconciliations wherever we can. We are anxious that the reconciliation talks in Lebanon continue with all possible speed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the press reports of my right hon. Friend's discussion with Mr. Dam were apparently inaccurate, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to tell the House what was discussed? Does she accept that in seeking to promote peace in the middle east she will have the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend would expect, the talks were friendly, serious, constructive and considered each of the important issues. I believe that my right hon. Friend, after a moment's thought, would be the first to realise that, if everything said in confidential talks had to be revealed for comment, confidential talks would soon cease.

Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: Has the Prime Minister had the chance to consider the disturbing allegations made today on Liverpool's Radio City station to the effect that a man who today was convicted of murder had links with the special branch and with British intelligence? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Has she had the chance to consider his admission that he had concealed the fact that he had committed a number of other murders? What steps has the Prime Minister taken to instigate an inquiry into this serious and major allegation?

The Prime Minister: I assure the House that the police and other law enforcement agencies will investigate the allegations of criminal offences with proper thoroughness. The House knows that it is not the practice to confirm or deny the other allegations.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend believe that, in view of the continued imprisonment of the Zimbabwean officers — despite their acquittal — the imprisonment of Bishop Abel Muzorewa without trial and the latest threats by Mr. Mugabe to Joshua Nkomo and Mr.


Sithole, the time is coming when we should reconsider our policy on Zimbabwe, especially the amount of aid that we give?

The Prime Minister: No aid to Zimbabwe has been held up. The acid test is whether, if such an action were to be taken—we are not contemplating it—it would help those whom we aim to help.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in the tense international situation, which is compounded by the Soviet leader's illness, the impending invasion of the Lebanon by America and Israel will be strongly condemned by the British Government? Will she further confirm that she will seek to persuade other Western democracies to join in that condemnation?

The Prime Minister: I cannot add much to what I have already said. Action in self-defence is permitted under military law. One must understand that die United States, France and Israel were at the receiving end of the most terrible atrocities. It is for them to consider how far the laws of self-defence permit any action they may be contemplating. It would be wrong to make any statement in advance of any action that may or may not occur.

Mr. Wareing: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wareing: Does the right hon. Lady agree with the Secretary of State for the Environment, who told the Tory party conference that we should listen to the voice of industry? Would she change her mind if the collective voice of commerce and industry on Merseyside were to tell her that it is opposed to her proposals to abolish the Merseyside county council?

The Prime Minister: The short answer is no, Sir. We fought the election on that manifesto and we shall carry it out.

Mr. Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the report in some newspapers to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition has offered to pay, out of his own pocket, for bright black children from the west midlands to attend independent schools and that, apparently, four have been found?

The Prime Minister: Fortunately, I do not answer for the Leader of the Opposition, but I am sure that any charitable gesture will be welcomed.

Anglo-Irish Summit Meeting

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I should like, with permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a brief statement on the discussions that I held with the Taoiseach on 7 November. I was accompanied by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Dr. Fitzgerald was accompanied by Mr. Spring, the Tanaiste, and by Mr. Barry, the Irish Foreign Minister.
This was our first meeting for two years, other than in the margins of the European Council. It took place within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council which we set up at our meeting on 6 November 1981. The meeting provided the occasion for a useful and constructive exchange of views and reflected the good relationship which now exists between our two countries.
We reviewed the state of work of the council at both ministerial and official levels. We approved a joint report describing the co-operation which has taken place between the two countries since the publication of the Anglo-Irish joint studies in November 1981. We particularly welcomed the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations for the supply of Kinsale gas to Northern Ireland. The report and the review annexed to it, with the exception of the section on security matters, have been placed in the Library of the House.
We also discussed other issues in Anglo-Irish relations, including the situation in Northern Ireland. We reaffirmed our deep concern about continuing violence and our joint determination to take all possible means to end it. Dr. Fitzgerald spoke of the work of the new All-Ireland Forum. We also discussed a wide range of international issues, including the Lebanon. We gave special attention to community issues in the light of the forthcoming European Council in Athens. We look forward to further meetings of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council at Heads of Government level at regular intervals.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for her statement. As the main purpose of Dr. Fitzgerald's visit yesterday was to secure the reassurance that the British Government attach—in his words—
a very high priority to Northern Ireland affairs",
was the Prime Minister able to give that assurance, and did it include any proposals by her for any new initiatives? It is reported that Dr. Fitzgerald spent much of his interview with the Prime Minister yesterday expressing his anxiety that the political stalemate in Northern Ireland was increasing alienation in the community. Is such an impression confirmed by the information available to the right hon. Lady from Northern Ireland?
I understand that it is plainly impossible for the right hon. Lady to offer any opinion about the new All-Ireland Forum in advance of the publication of its report, but what status does she propose to award the report when published? Will she make provision for a debate in the House on the document?
I welcome the Prime Minister's statement that meetings on what I should prefer to call the British-Irish Intergovernmental Council at Heads of Government level will continue regularly. Can we look forward to further periodic reports to the House or publications from the council?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course we give high priority to Northern Ireland affairs. The circumstances there are such that we have to. We seek constantly to end terrorism and violence there, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. We were not able to consider any new initiatives and, as he would expect, if there were to be such new initiatives they would have been reported to the House.
I was not aware that there had been increasing alienation within the minority community in Northern Ireland. What has been disturbing is the extent to which Sinn Fein has gained extra support. I think that that is a worry to all of us who oppose violence.
I believe that a report from the new All-Ireland Forum is not expected until the new year and perhaps it would be best to wait and see what it contains. We await the report with interest. I understand that one hon. Member has already given evidence before the forum.
The right hon. Gentleman's comments about "British-Irish", highlight a problem with so many of joint bodies — Anglo-American, Anglo-Irish and Anglo-Israeli — because "Anglo" has a connotation of England. If the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members wish to change the names of those groups to "British"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] — perhaps he would consider the matter further with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I commend the Prime Minister on her fortitude yesterday in listening to Dr. Fitzgerald for some five hours. It may have seemed a little longer. While regretting that the Government feel it necessary to maintain the fiction of an Anglo-Irish council when, for example, there is no Anglo-American council, can we assume that the Prime Minister achieved her object of telling the Irish Government that the dangerous course pursued since 1979 is being reversed?

The Prime Minister: It is important that we should try to have good, friendly relations with the Republic of Ireland. The Leader of the Opposition agreed with that. It is the only country with which we have a land border, and there has to be a considerable amount of co-operation across that border. I believe it advisable, therefore, that we continue in every way possible to have close and friendly relations with the Republic of Ireland. The position of Northern Ireland has not changed. It is part of the United Kingdom and will remain so unless the Northern Ireland people wish it any other way.

Rev. William McCrea: This summit has been hailed as a normalisation of relations with the Republic of Ireland. Will the Prime Minister explain how, having due regard to this nation's constitutional integrity, it is possible to have such normalisation with a foreign state when it continues to claim part of our territory and harbours fugitive terrorists?

Hon. Members: Reading.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is relatively new, but he should not read his question.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. What extradition and other demands did the Prime Minister make of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland?

The Prime Minister: This was not a meeting for making demands. These meetings began within the context of the fact that we are both members of the


European Community. We have bilateral meetings with other members of the Community. There have been fewer with the Republic of Ireland than with other Community members. The Northern Ireland constitutional position remains fully safeguarded by the statutory provision that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and will continue to be so unless her people wish otherwise.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Intergovernmental Council authorised to continue discussions on more effective joint security operations and policing across the border and the possible creation of an all-Ireland court?

The Prime Minister: Yes, on security matters, but for obvious reasons that part of the report has not been placed in the Library. Discussions are held and I stress that we receive maximum security co-operation across the border, for which we are grateful.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Alhough I welcome the restored cordiality that befits a unique relationship that could one day lead to the reunification of the British Isles—spoken of not just by me but by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth)—will my right hon. Friend allay Unionist misgivings by recognising that devolution is impracticable and by seeking the fullest integration of Northern Ireland with Great Britain?

The Prime Minister: I know that the reunification of the British Isles has been an objective of my hon. Friend for a long time, and that he puts it forward on all possible occasions. It is his idea, and he must be left to pursue it in his own way.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Prime Minister believe that any proposals that might emanate from the All-Ireland Forum in Dublin could be relevant to any change of policy by the Government for the North?

The Prime Minister: It is too early to say, but one must not have a mind closed to new ideas. There are problems of violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to wish to have put to us any ideas to improve the position. If those problems were substantially improved, matters may be very different.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Did Dr. Fitzgerald tell my right hon. Friend about his attitude to relations between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands, and whether his attitudes were different from those of his predecessor, Mr. Haughey, who was Taoiseach at the time of the Falklands crisis?

The Prime Minister: We discussed that matter in the light of the resolution that will soon come before the United Nations, and we expressed the hope that the Republic of Ireland would abstain.

Dr. David Owen: Although I welcome the Prime Minister's statement that she does not approach the matter with a closed mind, is she aware that many people believe that with the start of a new Administration that has a large majority behind it she owes it to the British people to search for ways of resolving the problem? Has she noticed the striking example in the

republic, where all three political parties have been ready to explore a new political initiative? Should not that be an example for the House to follow?

The Prime Minister: What happens in the House is not a matter for me, and I am sure that there are many discussions in the normal way in all-party committees. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we would owe it to a new idea to give it a thorough intellectual inspection to see whether it can contribute to the improvement of some of the problems of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Do not the efforts of the Irish Republic to keep the political pot boiling in Northern Ireland serve to encourage violence there? Is it not in the interests of both countries for Northern Ireland to enjoy a long period of political peace and stability and no further political initiatives?

The Prime Minister: We have had very good co-operation from the Republic of Ireland in trying to stamp out violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend will be aware that, soon after the recent escape from the Maze, the Taoiseach said publicly that the fugitives would find no safety in the republic. That is the statement of someone who is trying as hard as we are to stamp out that violence and terrorism which so worries my hon. Friend, myself and other right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. John Hume: Does the Prime Minister agree that the lesson that arises from the continuing tragedy in Northern Ireland is that past approaches by all parties have failed, and that there is an urgent and drastic need for a reappraisal by all parties of their approach to the problem? Will the Government give a lead by reappraising their policy? Does she further agree that the Northern Ireland problem is the greatest human problem facing the Government, and does not that problem need and deserve the full and constant attention of the Prime Minister? Must it not be a priority of the Government in a way that it has not been in the past?
Does the Prime Minister further agree that the Northern Ireland problem is not simply a matter of relationships between the people of Northern Ireland but involves the relationships between both parts of Ireland and between Ireland and Britain, that therefore the British-Irish framework is the proper framework for reaching a solution and that both Governments have a role to play in solving the problem?

The Prime Minister: We are frequently asked for new initiatives and reappraisals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has taken new initiatives. We try constantly to find ways to stamp out the violence and terrorism, and we shall continue to seek new ideas and examine them to see whether they can help. It is easier to ask for reappraisals and new initiatives than it is to define measures that will be of practical help. We shall always look for measures that will be of practical help.

Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many of the Conservative Members who stand four square behind the continued unity of the kingdom welcome regular high-level talks between the United Kingdom and the republic on the basis that they shall discuss matters of mutual interest to two sovereign


states? Will she communicate that view to Foreign Office officials, who sometimes fail to understand that that is the only purpose of such talks?

The Prime Minister: The talks are between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a member of the European Community, and it has been clear all along that the talks are between the two capitals.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: If the Prime Minister accepted with Dr. Fitzgerald that a major problem in the Six Counties was the alienation of a large part of the minority of the population, what positive steps did she discuss to end that alienation and to swing the minority back to supporting constitutional national parties?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I said at the beginning of my answers that we have not found an increase in alienation but that we were worried about the apparent increase in support for Sinn Fein. Dr. Fitzgerald and I did not discuss individual measures. He is waiting for the report of the All-Ireland Forum. If the hon. Gentleman has any ideas to put forward that may help, I am sure that he will do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. We have a ten-minute Bill before an important debate. I shall call those hon. Members who have already risen, but I ask for brief questions.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Does the Prime Minister agree that, although we do not want dramatic statements about new initiatives, the Government should provide a smoke signal to the republic and to the people of Northern Ireland? Should it not show that the Government will not be bound for ever by the veto that we have given to the one million people in Northern Ireland, by means of which, unless it is rescinded, they will continue to frustrate the desire of 54 million people for a solution?

The Prime Minister: I am bound by the statute passed by the House, which states that the people of Northern Ireland are part of the United Kingdom because the majority of them wish it, and that that position will not change unless the majority wishes it.

Mr. Reg Freeson: In pursuing that point, which the Prime Minister stressed constantly today as she has on other occasions, does she accept that no section of the population of the United Kingdom can have a veto on discussion or on working out alternative political frameworks and ideas, wherever in the House or the country that section may be found? Does the right hon. Lady accept that the veto should not mean that the House or the British people should not pursue discussions and consultations to produce alternative frameworks for a solution?

The Prime Minister: The House approved the provision which is now in legislation, and I am bound by the House. That guarantee to Northern Ireland has been supremely important.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the Prime Minister use her considerable influence to try to

encourage the Unionist parties to go to the All-Ireland Forum and discuss the problems that are common to the whole of Ireland? [Laughter.] Does the right hon. Lady agree that instead of laughing when such a suggestion is made, Unionist Members should talk to their colleagues in the republic, which would set an example to all the Irish people, both North and South, and show that talking together is far better than killing? They could help by doing so.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members of the Unionist party do talk to some of the people in the Republic, but whether they take part in the new All-Ireland Forum is a matter for them to consider, not for me.

Mr. Robert Parry: In future discussions in the All-Ireland Forum, will the Prime Minister ensure that any consultations are made of all political parties on both sides of the border and also with the Irish community in Britain? Will she ensure that the question of Irish unity remains on the agenda?

The Prime Minister: I have said that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. It is fully represented in the House. We have increased the representation so that it shall be fully represented in the House. It stays a part of the United Kingdom until the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish it otherwise. Alongside that, I think it very right and proper that the United Kingdom, and the Government of the United Kingdom, enjoy friendly and good relationships with the people of the Republic. That is in the interests of the United Kingdom and the Republic as a whole and in the interests of Northern Ireland and the Republic as well.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister recall that a little over five years ago when she was Leader of the Opposition, and used to challenge my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) when he attended summits, she used to pour scorn on the idea of that sort of summitry? What has made her change her mind after five years' practice? Why does she still attend summits?

The Prime Minister: I frequently said from the Dispatch Box—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed, I remember the occasions to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The main value of summits is not the new initiatives or specific communiques that come out of them that are important—that is what I used to say then, and I still say it as Prime Minister—but the regular contacts, so that we can discuss main issues of the day. What has happened in the world, and the difficult problems that we face make it more important to continue those contacts. We notice that, with those with whom we have frequent contact — including those in the European Community — we understand one another's view on disarmament, the East-West relationship and the Middle East. Those consultations and contacts avoid misunderstanding. If we can avoid misunderstanding, that in itself is a great achievement.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Prime Minister aware that her claim that she now has good relations with the Irish Government cannot extend to the bulk of the people in Ireland, who have felt a deep distrust for her since her disastrous handling of the hunger strike—

Rev. William McCrea: Sit down.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Prime Minister aware that she can begin to make amends only when she recognises her responsibility for alienation, and begins to face up to the meaning and strength of Irish nationalism and then seeks ways of reconciling it with unionism?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also face up to the strength of feeling of unionism in Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the right hon. Lady recogise that, unless there are some genuine new initiatives and political progress in Northern Ireland, there is not likely to be a reduction in violence? If agreement is reached in due course with the Irish Prime Minister on various matters relating to the Province, will it be possible for those proposals to be put to a referendum in Britain and Northern Ireland so that 54 million people can give their views—not only those who happen to live in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: The point is to try to get genuine new initiatives that lead to the reduction of violence in Northern Ireland and also honour guarantees that have been given and that must exist unless they were repealed in any way by the House. I do not believe that they would be, without the full consent of the people of Northern Ireland. With regard to general referendums as distinct from a border poll, which is already enshrined in statute, there is no legislation in this country for a general power to have a referendum. Any proposition for a referendum has to be passed through in a separate statute on each occasion.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the Prime Minister recall that, in response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, she said that she saw no sign of increasing alienation of the minority community and then went on to say that she was concerned about the increase in support for Sinn Fein? As the increased support for Sinn Fein can come only from the minority community, and if she does not accept increasing alienation, to what does she ascribe the increased support for Sinn Fein?

The Prime Minister: I said precisely that I found no general increase in alienation, but in that part of the United Kingdom one is very concerned — [interruption.] I would not necessarily agree with that. One reason is that we do not know why support has gone from the constitutional republican parties to the other parties. That is a deep question.

Private Tenants' Rights

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give the tenants of private landlords the right to buy their dwellings and the right to repair and maintenance; to provide for full information as to the identity of their landlord; and for other related purposes.
The Bill would give the tenants of private landlords new and comprehensive rights and provide a real tenants' charter for all private tenants.
It is widely accepted that the 12 per cent. of the population who rent from private landlords are the most disadvantaged of all residential occupiers as they live in the worst maintained, highest cost housing in the country, often suffering from lack of security and often harassed by their landlords. I wish to introduce the Bill in response to requests from tenants in my constituency, where in the old town of Bootle and the older parts of Litherland well over 40 per cent. of the population still rent from private landlords and suffer intolerable housing conditions. It follows, also, representations from private tenants' organisations. The Bill seeks to eradicate bad landlordism, put private tenants on an equal footing with those in other tenures and facilitate the decline of the private rented sector over a period of years as it is appropriately transferred into owner occupation and social ownership.
The Bill will extend the right to buy to private tenants. If the Government are sincere about their claim to want to encourage owner occupation, why do they not allow the tenants of private landlords the right to buy their homes which council tenants have? Landlords also wish to sell their houses for owner occupation, but with vacant possession, and not to sitting tenants. Therefore, they often harass their tenants, forcing them out on to the street.
The Bill will include a provision to allow tenants to require their landlords to transfer their properties to socially responsible ownership. The bodies eligible for that purpose will be local authorities, housing associations and housing co-operatives.
The Labour party believes that people should oven their own homes either as owner-occupiers or collectively through a form of social ownership. In the last analysis, we do not believe that people should own other people's homes and profiteer from housing need. Without the Bill, the private rented sector will decline anyway as landlords force their tenants out and sell their properties. My proposal will speed the decline, stop profiteering and protect tenants.
Until the private rented sector has, with the help of the Bill, declined into near oblivion, private tenants will need protection. The Bill will therefore include provisions for increasing security of tenure. It is now a well documented fact that since the Housing Act 1980, the 1980s equivalent of the Tory Housing Act 1957, which led directly to Rachmanism, it is virtually impossible for a private tenant to obtain security of tenure with any new letting.
The use of licence agreements instead of tenancies, the use of bogus holiday lets, company lets, bed and board lets, rental purchase exploitation, shortholds and assured tenancies and the abuse of the resident landlord provision have made evasion and avoidance of basic security the norm rather than the exception.
The Bill will give security of tenure to all residential occupiers, except for certain limited exclusions which will need a licence from the relevant local authority.
Provisions will be introduced dealing with rent regulations and subsidies. All charges for accommodation will be subject to rent regulation procedures. Such procedures will also apply to service charges, another area of exploitation of tenants by landlords. The law against harassment and illegal eviction will be strengthened significantly. It is widely recognised that the provisions of the Rent Act 1977 for protecting tenants against harassment are inadequate. It offers little, if any, protection against harassment tactics such as the intermittent disconnection of services, interference with mail, persistent and unnotified visits and unsolicited and unwarranted letters. Harassment is widespread and has reached epidemic proportions in some areas.
Tenants suffer high levels of distress and serious damage to health when landlords do not fulfil their repairing obligations. The Bill will establish minimum housing standards and tenants will be given clear rights to force landlords to meet their responsibilities or to force local authorities to undertake works in default.
Local authorities will have an important role in policing the private rented sector and bringing properties into socially responsible ownership. The Bill will make mandatory the existing and extensive discretionary powers that are available to local authorities in this sphere. Tenants will be able to require local authorities to take action against recalcitrant landlords.
Many private tenants are unaware of their rights, and landlords exploit such lack of knowledge. Many tenants do not even know the names of their landlords. Tenants should be provided with full information as to their rights and landlords' responsibilities in this matter. Landlords should be required to issue rent books which show clearly their own as well as their agents' names and addresses.
The Bill is aimed at protecting some of the most vulnerable members of our community—certainly those most badly housed—often the single, the single-parent family and the transient resident. It represents the modest demands of tenants, and includes measures that will lead to the inevitable ending of most private landlord accommodation.
As the nation's housing crisis intensifies, with fewer public sector houses for rent being constructed, and waiting lists and homelessness increasing, the Bill becomes essential. Private landlords are running riot as more and more people are forced to depend on private renting because they can no longer gain access to other forms of tenure. Regrettably, dependency often leads to exploitation. We are beginning to face a housing crisis similar to that of the 1950s and early 1960s. When property is scarce and costs are high, those in greatest need suffer most. Many of those in greatest need must rent from private landlords. They need the protection of the House. I seek leave to bring in a Bill that affords such protection.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Terry Fields and Mr. David Winnick.

PRIVATE TENANTS' RIGHTS

Mr. Allan Roberts accordingly presented a Bill to give the tenants of private landlords the right to buy their dwellings and the right to repair and maintenance; to provide for full information as to the identity of their landlord; and for other related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

Trade Union Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for Employment, I should tell the House that I have not selected the instruction on the Order Paper because it is out of order, being beyond the scope of the Bill.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Although a brief interchange took place during Question Time, I welcome the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) to their new responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench. Although a general musical chairs has taken place recently, I look forward to debating this and other matters with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues in the future.
I am especially proud that my new responsibilities give me the opportunity to introduce the Bill, which moves significantly forward along the step-by-step approach so well established by my predecessors. I pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who set the standards by which the Government have since proceeded, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who masterminded the Bill. In the 1980 Act my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, then Secretary of State for Employment, tackled the problems of abuse of the closed shop and the picket line. In the 1982 Act, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, during his term as Secretary of State for Employment, removed the immunity of trade unions which organised unlawful industrial action and made all closed shops subject to the test of a ballot. The Bill is concerned to establish a proper relationship between trade unions and their members and particularly to ensure that members in unions have a real say in the two key areas of who shall lead them and whether they take industrial action. This latest step is not one which we have taken lightly or hastily. We have always made it clear that our preference was for voluntary reform of trade unions.
In the 1980 Act we made public money available to finance postal ballots both for elections and for strikes and industrial action. In 1981, within a month of taking office, my predecessor, now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, made a public offer to help the trade unions in any way that they might suggest to reform their constitutions and procedures. Both offers have been ignored by the trade union movement, consciously and deliberately. They refused even to discuss these questions before and after the Green Paper was published. They cannot, therefore, complain if the Government have proceeded without their advice to ensure the democratic rights of their members which the procedures of far too many unions still do not ensure.
It is still the case that most union leaders are elected by votes cast, often by a show of hands, at branch meetings held away from the workplace, despite all the evidence that branch meetings on average are attended only rarely by more than 7 per cent. of members.
It is still the case that some of the largest trade unions use the block vote system of election despite all the

evidence that its effect is to distort the result of elections and to hide the fact that only a tiny percentage of members actually turn up to vote.
It is still the case that only two major TUC unions have adopted fully postal ballots for the election of their leaders, despite the clear evidence that postal ballots — like workplace ballots—mean a substantial increase in the number of members who vote.
It is still the case that most unions refuse to hold secret ballots before strikes and rely on rowdy open-air meetings which are a travesty of democracy.
It is still the case, moreover, that some unions use the coercive power of the closed shop to force their members to strike without any consultation at all, as we saw at the time of the notorious day of action in 1982 and the British Rail dispute of the same year.
All this occurred despite the fact that the 1980 Act removed the objection of cost which has always been the trade unions' main argument against secret ballots.

Mr. David Winnick: Trade unions hardly need any lecture about internal democracy from the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues. It is strange that the right hon. Gentleman should be preaching to the trade unions as he has, when he is a senior member of a party which is far from democratic. Will he tell the House who was responsible for the decision to appoint the present chairman of the Conservative party? Did any ballot or election take place? Can he also say which trade union annual conference — I have attended the annual conference of my union for nearly 30 years—is likely to be as stage-managed as was the Tory party conference?

Mr. King: I should have thought that it was readily apparent that there is no immediate parallel between trade unions and voluntary organisations such as political parties. Trade unions have had immunity from normal processes of law conferred upon them by Parliament. The hon. Gentlemen and his colleagues, above all, should know that no political party is immune from damages or prosecution, as some fairly unpleasant things have happened to the Labour party. Trade unions have special protection in that respect.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seeks to challenge this proposal. He should be far-sighted enough to know that in the sequence of events that I have described the first casualty is the trade union movement itself. In my view, the standing of the British trade union movement has never been lower than it was towards the end of the 1970s. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and the Labour Government heaped privileges upon the trade unions in the 1974 and 1976 Acts, but they did them no real service, and they certainly cannot claim that the privileges were used with the restraint and the responsibility promised at that time. No one who lived through the appalling strikes of 1979 could make such a claim. In talking about rights, it should be noted that those events led to an unprecedented expansion of the closed shop and to the arraignment of the United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights, so it is worth remembering where the Labour party's approach took it.
It may be said that there is no parallel for the Bill in the legislation of other countries. We should note also, however, that no other trade union movement has grown up behind such a wall of virtually total legal immunity and that the closed shop is unlawful throughout most of


western Europe and much of north America. The lesson from those countries is clear. Trade unions have a more secure and respected place in society if they recruit members by the quality of the service that they offer rather than by industrial conscription and if they are seen to be democratic institutions responsive to the needs and wishes of their members.
In this context, the Official Report of an earlier debate says that
if unionism is to flourish, it must be on the basis of encouraging voluntary union membership, with the unions recognising that they have to sell their services, and not upon the basis of compulsive sanction." — [Official Report, 27 January 1971; Vol. 810, c. 688.]
That was my own contribution to the debate on the Industrial Relations Bill 12 years ago and I believe it just as strongly now, so I can claim some consistency of view on this. The message to the unions, now as then, must be that thinking that admiration and respect can be gained through conscription and compulsion is a very dangerous philosophy.
I am also encouraged in moving the Second Reading by the fact that it contains nothing that has not already been done by one union or another. That applies to secret ballots for union leadership, for strikes and even for political funds. If some trade unions can follow proper democratic procedures, why should they not all do so? That is the purpose of the Bill. It does not establish any special courts. It does not create any new supervisory agency. It does not provide for the Government to impose ballots on trade unions. It does not require the wholesale rewriting of trade union rule books, nor does it prescribe a large number of detailed procedures for unions to follow. It does none of those things. It seeks to extend the existing rights of trade union members and the remedies already available to them.
Part I of the Bill concerns elections, part II strike ballots and part III the political activities of trade unions.
Part I provides that all the voting members of the governing body of a trade union must be elected by a secret ballot of the members. The governing body is defined as the "principal executive committee"—that is, the most senior permanent elected body of each trade union and not, for example, the annual conference which, whatever its policy-making functions, is likely to meet on no more than a few days in the year. It is the principal executive committee which governs the union from day to day and is usually responsible for actions such as the calling of strikes. Therefore, it is on the principal executive committee that the need for democratic accountability is greatest. The president and general secretary of each union will be subject to the same electoral requirement if they have a vote or a casting vote on the executive.
The ballot must be secret and every member entitled to vote must have an opportunity to do so at the time and place convenient to him and without having to incur direct personal cost. In practice, this means that ballots will normally have to take place either at the workplace or by post. The block vote and voting by a show of hands at branch meetings, with all their potential for manipulation, will not satisfy the requirements of the Bill. That in itself will be a major advance.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How would that apply to the National Union of Mineworkers, in which

most of the power is vested in the regional and area branches throughout the coalfields? The NUM executive consists of all the officials, most of them full time, who are elected by secret ballot at the pithead. Is the Minister suggesting that they will have to go through another ballot when they go on to become members of the executive?

Mr. King: The determination whether they are involved depends on whether they have a vote. A distinction has been made between voting and non-voting officials. We understood and accepted that point when it came up in representations from interested parties.
Another important point may concern some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Some people would have liked the Bill to provide for postal ballots only, but there would have inevitably have had to be exceptions for seamen, building workers and others who regularly work away from home. Moreover, I am not convinced that postal ballots are always the best means of ensuring maximum participation in elections. The turnover of members in many unions is very high and records are seldom up to date. A workplace ballot, properly conducted as the Bill will require, may often be a more effective means of getting voting papers into the hands of trade union members, as a comparison between some unions which operate postal ballots and others which operate workplace ballots clearly shows.
I hope that whenever possible unions will make use of postal ballots. The money provided under the 1980 Act to meet the cost of such ballots will continue to be available. I believe, however, that it would have been impracticable and even counterproductive to have required a postal ballot in every case. The most important need is to ensure that every trade unionist has a genuine and equal opportunity to vote and to do so in secret, thus ending what amounts to the disfranchisement of the majority, which is the present scandalous position in some of the largest unions. That is what the Bill is designed to achieve.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Secretary of State require employers to make facilities and time available during working hours for the proposed ballots to take place?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will know the requirements set out in earlier legislation about making convenient arrangements, as I believe the saying goes. The provision of space and time is not a mandatory requirement, but they must seek to make arrangements. All this is set out in the codes of practice, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar. The subject may be further debated in Committee.
Part II concerns strike ballots. In effect, it gives trade unions a choice. They may ballot their members before calling them out on strike and keep the immunity that the law allows, or they may call a strike without a ballot and forfeit their immunity.
It is a simple proposition and an entirely fair one. A trade union's immunity from civil proceedings in an industrial dispute is a privilege unique in English law. I do not doubt that it is a necessary privilege if trade unions are to function effectively, but that is not to say that it should be a unconditional privilege and free of any corresponding obligations. The minimum obligation is surely to ensure that they have consulted their members before calling on them to risk their own livelihood and that of their friends and colleagues by going on strike, often causing considerable public disruption. There certainly can never


be any justification for a trade union compelling its members to strike against their will under the threat of withdrawing their union cards and effectively throwing them out of their jobs.
The provisions in part II cover all industrial action, not just a strike which is in breach of contract and which is authorised or endorsed by a trade union, as set out under the 1982 Act. That means it will cover all official industrial action but also any action which trade unions or their paid officials are seen to be supporting. It would not, of course, be practicable to require the organisers or leaders of unofficial action to hold ballots. For one thing, they may be hard to identify and often unofficial action is too shortlived for there to be time for a ballot to be held. Obviously it would be illogical to put a balloting obligation on a trade union in the case of wholly unofficial action. Some have suggested, but I do not believe it, that the effect of this provision could be to encourage unofficial action. On the contrary, I think it will cause organisers of unofficial action to think twice. They will know that their union will be reluctant to give official blessing to a strike which was started unofficially, because to do so without holding a ballot would cost the union its immunity. In future the organisers of unofficial action may well find that they are on their own.
Of course, the Opposition claim that any and every change in the law will mean an increase in unofficial action. They said the same about the 1982 Act. I have yet to see evidence of it. They were at it again just now but we have rather longer memories of some comments made by members of the Opposition on earlier occasions. Their solution of unlimited, unconditional immunity for any and every bit of industrial action was not notably successful when they tried it in the late 1970s.

Mr. John Smith: If the Secretary of State thinks that it is self-evident that there ought to be withdrawal of what he calls immunity if a ballot is not held, can he explain why the Green Paper produced by his predecessor explained in paragraph 60 that no country had ever legislated in this manner, why the document recommended against it and why it considered every alternative except the one which is in the Bill?

Mr. King: We had consultations about the proposals in the Green Paper and we took a different view in the light of those consultations. Many representations were made. It is an original approach to suggest that the proposals in a Green Paper should be followed as slavishly as those in a White Paper. We considered the representations that did not support the Government's proposals, and we felt that this was a better proposal to adopt. I hope we will get credit for listening to the representations.
Part III of the Bill deals with the rights of trade union members in trade unions which engage in political activities. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a union from continuing to engage in political activity if that is the wish of the majority of its members. That was the principle established by the Trade Union Act 1913 and nothing in this Bill detracts from it in any way. If the majority of the members of a union wish it, their union can establish a political fund and raise a political levy of whatever size they choose. Their union may affiliate as many members as it wishes to a political party and play whatever role it can in the life of that political party. If unions wish to affiliate more members to a political party than actually

pay the levy—as some unions do—then that is their business and nothing in this Bill will prevent their doing so. The trade unions can continue to march their ghost armies through party conferences and brandish their block votes if that is what their members wish. I cannot emphasise sufficiently that this Bill is not concerned with the political activities of trade unions as such, still less with the role trade unions may or may not play in a particular political party. It is concerned, as the 1913 Act was concerned, with the rights of the individual members in trade unions which decide to raise a political levy and spend it on political purposes.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Secretary of State not admit that the circumstances of 1983 are very different from those of 1913? What the Government are trying to do is tilt the balance of political activity very much in favour of big business which can subvent the Tory party in terms of funds. Is he desirous of moving along a free enterprise route and of this country emulating the United States of America where the farce of their political activity was epitomised by Governor Connally of Texas raising $11 million to get one vote? Is that what the Secretary of State wants in this country?

Mr. Skinner: And he is a moderate.

Mr. King: That was a very interesting contribution. The implication of the intervention by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is that no union could get the support of its members in a ballot to continue a political fund. If that is true, it is difficult for the House to walk away from it. I invite hon. Members to correct me if I am wrong. I have had investigations made and I believe that only a very limited number of unions have had ballots; the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades had one recently, in 1976, I think.
There have been other ballots recently, but in a considerable number of unions we have not been able to trace any evidence of a ballot being held since 1913. That means in effect, unless they have much longer serving members than one appreciates, that in many unions not one member has ever had the opportunity to vote for the political fund. Presumably the 1913 Act was never intended to be a once-for-all provision, with no one ever having the opportunity to vote again on the matter. The only reason the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West would have for making that intervention would be if he expects that a few unions will be able to pass the simple test of a ballot of their members as to whether they wish the political fund to continue.

Mr. John Evans: In view of the enormous research that the Secretary of state has done, can he tell the House how many union conferences of unions which are affiliated to the Labour party have had before them in the past 50 years resolutions demanding the ending of the political levy and how many of those resolutions were carried?

Mr. King: I was referring to voting on the political fund. I cannot find evidence of this. We all know that the activities of certain union members on the levy, as well as the fund, have ensured that the matter has never or very rarely been raised at political conferences. In certain unions branches have raised the issue of paying the levy to another political party. Whether that has been raised at conferences or in the executive business of the union I am


not aware. That happened in the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. The Bill provides that unions with political funds must consult their members in a secret ballot at least once every 10 years to see if the members want the political fund to continue. The procedure for these review ballots is exactly the same as that laid down in the 1913 Act.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The Minister will know that every trade union has at frequent intervals a chance of rules revision. During the process of revising the rules and endorsing them or otherwise, every member of a trade union has the right to end the commitment of his union to collect political funds. Therefore, there is a continuing process, whereby all members of trade unions can participate in the revision process. It is by that method that they say whether the trade union should continue to have a political fund. In other words, there is a regular opportunity for members to decide whether to continue with the fund. The Secretary of State is wrong to assert that trade unions do not regularly review their right to have political funds.

Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the system works well and, therefore, that the existing system accurately reflects the attitude of union members, I cannot understand what the problem is all about as elections and periodic ballots will bear that out. My understanding of the argument advanced by Opposition Members is that they are nervous of the possible outcome of a ballot. They are worried that a ballot would give union members a chance to vote on political funds. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West expressed his extreme anxiety that doing anything as rash as allowing union members to vote on political funds might lead to terrible things. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) cannot have it both ways. Either the system works—it is well understood by all union members — and the hon. Gentleman has nothing to worry about in a straight ballot, or the system does not work. A ballot will bear that out.

Mr. Iain Mills: Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend by quoting a reasonable trade union leader—Gavin Laird. He said:
I make no secret of it, we make it as difficult as we can for our members to contract out. I want the Labour Party to have as much money as possible. And within the law there is no way I'm going to facilitate people contracting out".
That is what Gavin Laird said in 9 September 1983 on Channel 4.

Mr. King: To coin a phrase, "It is not the moderates." The whole House will have listened to that quotation with interest. If that is an example of one of the moderates at work, God help us when we have to deal with the activities of some of the more extreme Left members of some trade unions.
The Bill does not deal with the rights of individual trade union members not to pay the political levy. That right was guaranteed by the 1913 Act. But there has been increasing worry recently about the difficulties experienced by some union members when they try to exercise that right. That point was well illustrated by the quotation which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) gave. I am discussing that issue with the TUC. I have asked it to make practical proposals to ensure a free and effective right for

trade unionists to choose whether to pay the levy. Of course, I shall let the House know the outcome of those discussions at the earliest opportunity but I have made it clear to the TUC that, in the absence of its making acceptable proposals, I reserve the right to table suitable amendments to the Bill later, possibly on Report.
The Bill fulfils the undertaking that we gave to the country in our election manifesto. We fought and won that election on a promise to give the unions back to their members. That is the fact which the TUC cannot afford to forget, which some of the more extreme leaders of less democratic unions would dearly like to forget, but which the Government will never forget. Poll after poll has shown that these proposals have the support of the overwhelming majority of the British people and the majority of trade unionists.
I was glad to discover today that the Bill has even wider support than I realised. I happened to discover an early-day motion tabled by some far-sighted Opposition Members as long ago as 1975. It gives me some pleasure to note its wording:
That this House, in the interests of maximum democratic participation, urges the Government to introduce legislation to ensure the provision of financial aid for postal ballots in trade union elections.
That motion was tabled by two members of the Labour shadow Cabinet and five other members of the new Labour Front Bench, including the hon. Member for St. Helens, North, whom we welcome to his new responsibilities. The need for the Bill is apparently recognised by the hon. Gentleman and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as the vast number of electors and trade unionists who voted for the Conservatives at the general election. Millions of trade union members are looking to us to carry them through. That is the task on which we are now embarked and it is with enthusiasm that I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. John Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for his kind comments about me. I am happy to reciprocate them and to congratulate him on his first appearance, apart from Question Time, at the Dispatch Box in his present capacity.
The Secretary of State did not give us much detail. Indeed, he skipped through the Bill rather quickly, especially part II. I hope that we shall examine it much more carefully than the Secretary of State wants us to. The Bill is an irrelevant effrontery by the Conservative party. Conservatives, of all people, want to lecture the British trade union movement on the principles and practice of democracy.
As recently as 1963, the late lain Macleod was moved to describe the processes by which a Conservative Prime Minister was appointed to the highest political office in the land as more akin to the enstoolment of an African tribal chief than to the processes of modern political democracy. It is a party in the internal processes of which, as witnessed by the sickeningly deferential annual conferences, democracy is only occasionally glimpsed and yet it has the patronising temerity to use the power of the state to impose on our trade unions the Conservative party's ideas of how they should be run internally. Moreover, all that is in respect of trade unions which were born in democracy, nurtured and developed by it and practise it almost every day.
The Bill also restricts further the power of trade unions to defend and advance their members' interests by imposing an arbitrary and inflexible ballot which, in practice, amounts to a compulsory pre-strike ballot before there is any official withdrawal of labour under pain of losing the legal safeguards which alone would render that action possible.
The Bill produces the ludicrous circumstances in which members of a trade union who take part in an unofficial strike will have legal immunity from civil action if they are acting in a trade dispute while a trade union which acts officially will lose immunity completely if a ballot as prescribed by the Bill is not held. The processes of the inflexible ballot will encourage unofficial action more widely than ever before as industrial relations experts and intelligent employers know well.
The Bill creates a legal and practical incentive for unofficial action. Is that the Conservative party's contribution to better industrial relations? I hope that Conservative Members will understand that clearly before they vote for a Bill which might have an effect that they little imagine let alone intend.
Thirdly, in an act of mean-minded political spite, the Conservative party wants to restrict the operation of political funds of trade unions so much that it hopes to undermine the Labour party financially, thereby making it more difficult for Labour to carry out its constitutional function as Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. All this, while money is encouraged to flow—without let or hindrance or murmur of statutory control — from the coffers of corporate and private sector industry towards the Conservative party.

Mr. Roger Gale: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that the Labour party is so bankrupt of ideas that it is incapable of obtaining funds by any other way from its members than coercion?

Mr. Smith: I regret having given way. If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I have to say, he will hear my argument as it develops.
In part I, for the first time in our history, the Government are attempting to regulate the internal affairs of trade unions. Hitherto, Governments of all complexions have regarded it as a necessary corollary of the freedom of association that trade unions be regarded as voluntary associations, free from interference by the employers or the state, which could best regulate their own affairs in accordance with rules democratically determined by their members and by the rules of natural justice.
I stress freedom of association as a cardinal principle. It must be regarded as important in these matters as the freedom of the individual. Unfortunately, in recent years the Conservative party, as it has become consumed by animosity towards the trade union movement, has overlooked its importance. However, it is a crucial principle threatened by the Bill.
The Government, in the Green Paper and in the Bill, proceed on the assumption that there is some serious deficiency in the way that trade unions elect their ruling executives. We reject that untrue assumption to be an unwarranted and unjustified slur on British trade unions. As British trade unions have grown over the years, hampered many times by legal decisions and political obstacles, they have each, in their own way, according to their experiences and requirements, developed their own

system of representative internal government. What might be suitable for a small, tightly-knit craft union with strong traditions of internal cohesion might often not be suitable for a large general union, covering multifarious industries and services and with a large turnover of membership.
The trade unions have responded to the challenges that they have faced at different times in their history. Often, for example, they have changed their systems, either as a result of amalgamations or as the nature of the industry or service in which their members work has changed. They are changing every year, in one way or another, the methods by which they conduct their internal democracy.
Some unions hold annual elections for their executive council and some have indirect systems of elections. Some give their chief officers a vote on the executive but others do not. Some officials have to run so frequently for election that they have little time to do anything else. Some, on the contrary, are given security of employment for life. The essential truth is that the British trade union movement has developed a wide diversity of representative arrangements.
That is not a weakness of the trade unions but a source of strength. Accountability to the membership of trade unions is not only to be reckoned in terms of the methods of the election of its ruling executive. It is reflected in the methods of accountability, ranging from the annual or biennial conferences of unions, rules revision conferences, regional conferences, branch meetings and workplace meetings. One characteristic, however, runs through all the different trade union arrangements. They have all been decided by the members of the unions.
Now the Government come on the scene and say that, whatever the membership of any union may have resolved in the past or may now believe, a particular form of electing representatives is to be imposed on every British trade union, whatever its circumstances. In short, they seek to impose the rule that every voting member of a principal executive committee has to be elected every five years. That is the rule that the Government impose on every trade union, whether or not it wants it. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State thinks that there is something wrong about my statement on his Bill perhaps he will tell us. He cannot deny my statement because it is in the Bill that they must all do that. It is clear that the Secretary of State will not rise to explain what his muttered remarks meant.

Mr. Tom King: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that we are laying down a single method by which this has to be done. However, the only test has to be that elections are free, unfettered and secret. Otherwise, trade unions can use any method they like that passes those tests.

Mr. Smith: I thought that the Secretary of State had not been listening to what I was saying, and that confirms my thinking. I made it clear that I was objecting to the requirement, decided by the Government, that every executive member should be elected every five years, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, rules out other methods of elections, perhaps for longer periods or by indirect methods.
The Government seek to impose the rule that every voting member of an executive committee has to be elected every five years. Any form of direct or indirect election that does not fit this pattern is effectively to be declared illegal, and the Government's chosen pattern is to be enforced directly by the courts.

Mr. Michael Howard: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggesting that a requirement that these officials of trade unions be reelected at least once every five years is objectionable and, if so, why?

Mr. Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully as I develop my argument. I am objecting to the Government deciding that what they think should be done by unions is what should be done, whatever the union members may agree. Freedom of association means that the best people to decide the constitution of the union are the members of the union and not the state, represented by the present Government.
The crucial issue is that this means that the Government will require every union to go through this process, whether or not it wishes to. One can understand the argument that the wishes of the membership of the union should prevail and that if, for some reason, that is not happening, it should be ensured. However, I cannot understand the argument that if a Government think they know better than the members of the trade union how to run the union, it is consistent with the freedom of association that the Government should be able to impose their will.
I put it simply to assist the difficult task of persuading Conservative Members of my point. It could be established that there are at least five of what might be called "respectable" methods of representative self-government for trade unions, and let us call them A, B, C, D, and E. They might include indirect election, election at annual conferences, election by branch ballot, election by workplace ballots, combinations of partly directly elected and partly indirectly elected systems. The Government are saying that because they favour system A—the election of representatives every five years—that must be imposed on a membership that may be hostile to it.
Let me give the Government an example to persuade them of my point. Many white collar unions now seek highly qualified, professional staff in the market place to run their unions as the chief officials of the unions in much the same way as companies recruit executives. In return, the people who are appointed expect reasonable conditions of service, including the prospect of being employed for more than five years at a time. I hope that it is not thought to be unreasonable for these unions to act in such a way.
The unions may also think that it is sensible to give such officers of the unions a vote on their executive councils. Under the Bill, they will be prevented from doing that. Why on earth should they be so prevented from running the union in that pattern simply because the Government of the day—that is the Conservative party—take some objection? That is what the union wants, its members want, and what its members consistently vote for.
This part of the Bill is intellectually disreputable because it proceeds from arrogance, unfounded assumptions and downright ignorance of the way our trade unions work in practice. It will seriously inhibit trade unions in the exercise of their affairs in an unnecessary and troublesome manner. It will cause complications and expense with no benefit either to the unions or to the public. It comes ill from a Government to talk of democracy at the workplace—of which trade unions are almost our only example—when they consistently refuse to consider any advance in industrial democracy and to give trade unionists and other workers any influence on the

decisions at the workplace which have a major effect on their lives. At the same time as the Government introduce this Bill, they are ferociously resisting the moderate initiatives of the Vredeling and fifth company law directives of the European Community, which aim to achieve only limited industrial democracy.
If the Government believe that the system of internal self-government which they are imposing by statute on British trade unions is so good, when is it to be applied to other voluntary organisations? If it is to be forced on the Transport and General Workers Union or the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, why should it not be imposed on the National Farmers Union which, as far as I can see, is not covered by the Bill? It can be fairly said, I think, that that union exercises more influence than many other British institutions. It has a unique right of consultation under an Act of Parliament. I suspect that if the Government were to tell the NFU, with which many Conservative Members have a close association—

Mr. John Home Robertson: And me.

Mr. Smith: —that its system of electing its officials was not satisfactory and that its executive should be elected every five years, I am sure that many members of the NFU would say, "Mind your own business. We shall decide for ourselves how we run our union. We shall decide how we elect our executive." If it is good enough for the farmers to do that, it is good enough for the boilermakers and other British trade unions.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises that the NFU does not have immunities at law.

Mr. Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not inviting me to weep at the weakness of the NFU or find a place in my heart for that beleagured institution. As he well knows, the NFU has much more influence on this Government than the rest of the British trade union movement put together. He also knows that that has nothing to do with the so-called legal safeguards and immunity.
We are told that the protection of a trade union from being sued in civil actions is a great privilege or immunity. In fact, it is necessary for a trade union to operate. It is the way in which our legal system recognises the right of free association in trade unions. I never hear Conservative Members talking about the great privilege that is given to limited liability companies, whereby they are not forced to pay debts beyond the assets that have been contributed to the company. Of course, that is necessary for the operation of a limited liability company, and we accept it as such, but it is no more a privilege and no less an immunity than that which is accorded to trade unions in this country.
I come now to part II, which removes the necessary immunity from trade unions in all official strikes which are not preceded by a ballot of the workers, held according to the terms that are required in the Bill. As it is realistic to say that unions could not go on strike without the necessary safeguards now provided in section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, these provisions have the effect of requiring compulsory ballots before official strikes. We had better conduct our discussion on the Bill on the basis that it requires automatic pre-strike ballots for all official strikes.
That provision is based on another unwarranted assumption, that the leadership of the trade unions are constantly dragging reluctant members out on strike. The truth—as, again, industrial relations experts and most intelligent employers know only too well—is often the opposite. The members directly affected by an injustice, or a pay claim, or an unjustified alteration in the conditions of employment, are often more eager to take industrial action than their leaders. That truth, of course, will soon assert itself, if the Bill becomes law in its present form. When members are impatient of union procedures, or feel that they are too slow, or that the matter requires immediate or direct response, they will take unofficial action. The more the Bill puts obstacles in the way of effective official action, the more it will encourage unofficial action. It will not reduce strikes. It will merely encourage more strikes to be unofficial. Again, industrial relations experts and intelligent employers know the truth of that.
The Bill goes even further than that to encourage unofficial strikes. It gives unofficial strikers a better legal status than official action. Members of a trade union on unofficial strike in pursuance of a trade dispute are covered by the legal safeguards against civil action, but the same members, acting either without a ballot being held or before a ballot is held, will lose that safeguard. So there is not only a practical but a legal incentive for unofficial industrial action. If the Bill becomes law, it will give unofficial strikers more rights in law than those on offical strikes. Is that what the Conservatives want to contribute to better industrial relations? Is the message that is to be taken back to the constituencies this weekend that, "We have given more rights to unofficial strikers than to official strikers, and that is our plan for better industrial relations in the country"?
I want to examine some of the other features of this unpleasant Bill, because it has many curious and unintended effects.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to the House the origin of the clause dealing with strike ballots, because in the Government's mind it is very much second best? Is it not the case that when the Government considered statutory ballots they thought that if workers were compelled by statute to have a ballot before a strike, the implementation of the ballot decision would be imposed, and that the people who would then picket the factory, if there were a ballot decision to strke, would be the police force and not the factory workers? The Government therefore decided that it would be quite impossible to have policemen picketing factories to ensure the carrying out of the strike ballot to withdraw labour.

Mr. Smith: There is a lot of truth in what my hon. Friend says. However, he is asking me to undertake a difficult task, and that is to work out what caused the Government to introduce this provision. I remind the House that the Green Paper introduced by the previous Secretary of State argued strongly against this provision, by implication. It considered other ways in which the strike ballot might be held, perhaps triggered by demands from the members themselves. The Green Paper pointed out that no other country had a provision such as we find in this Bill, and for good reasons, which the Donovan commission explained in 1968.
This part of the Bill has serious implications for trade unions, because it will gravely undermine the effective pursuit of their members' interests. For example, no action authorised by the union before the ballot is held can be covered by the safeguards. So a union will not be able to act speedily or decisively when action of that nature is required, because it is bound to take days, if not weeks, to organise a large ballot. If, for example, a case of rank victimisation is perpetrated by an employer on a union member, the union will not be able to initiate with safety any industrial action covered by the Bill before a ballot is held, when the circumstances of the case cry out for swift and speedy action by the unions.
In these provisions we find the real clue to the Government's intentions. They seek to alter the balance of power between trade unions and employers. What I find appalling is the Government's deceitfulness in proceeding, as they would have it, to give more rights to the member of the union to be consulted before a strike is held, but having as the so-called sanction the complete removal of protection from civil actions of damages, which does not affect relations between the member and the union but gravely alters the balance of power between the unions and the employers and others. If the Government were genuine about giving more rights to the members, they would introduce provisions whereby members could trigger ballots, such as were discussed in their Green Paper. They would perhaps legislate to allow members to require ballots to be held—the very thing that they canvassed for discussion in their own Green Paper. However, that is precisely what the Government do not do in this Bill. They are using this provision as a pretext for hammering the unions once again, by totally removing the protection from civil suits for any action authorised before a ballot is held, or where a ballot has not been held.
The use of that sanction throws a searchlight of truth on the Government's real intentions. They are concerned not to advance the rights of individual members of unions, but to weaken unions in their dealings with employers.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Given what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, is the Labour party in favour of statutory provision for trigger ballots in industrial action?

Mr. Smith: Personally, I am not in favour of trigger ballots. However, they are an example of how the Government have moved away from the position that they canvassed, and an example, too, of why the sanction that they have used is illogical, even in terms of their own purposes.
There are, of course, even more problems about the ballots that the Government seek to impose. If there is to be a ballot to start a strike, why is there not to be a ballot to end it? I make two observations about that. First, if ballots were held, most unions would also wish to hold them at the end of a dispute to ratify any settlements that had been reached. They would feel obliged to do so, even if the holding of a ballot held up the return to work. I think that the Secretary of State has some knowledge of such matters, given his previous history. That process will not always make for better industrial relations or the speedy resolution of disputes. Secondly, if a ballot has to be held by law before a strike can take place, should there not, in justice, also be a requirement in law to hold a ballot to end it, in order to protect a member from the possibility of the


union agreeing to a settlement that he does not approve of? However, no such provision appears in the Bill. Such a question reveals the lack of consistency in the Government's approach.
The partiality evident in the statutory requirement concerning the framing of the question to be put in the ballot is even more serious. I hope that at a later stage hon. Members will look closely at clause 7(4), which prescribes the question that must be put. According to clause 7(4)(a), it must require the voter to say whether he is prepared to take part in a strike involving him in a breach of his contract of employment. Therefore, the question must be something like, "Are you prepared to take part in the strike in pursuit of the wage claim against your employer, which will involve you in a breach in your contract of employment?" The words, "any strike or other industrial action which involves a breach of a contract of employment" must be included in the question. Has a more loaded question ever been devised? Of course, its purpose is quite clear. It is to encourage union members to be inhibited about voting for the approval of industrial action, because they will be afraid of a legal consequence that they may not accurately perceive, but which they nevertheless fear. Again, we have a striking piece of evidence about the Government's lack of bona fides.
That part of the Bill will create enormous difficulties for trade union officials who are seeking to control industrial situations and to apply good industrial relations practices. The sudden and foolish insertion of the removal of legal immunities unless a ballot has been held makes a major change in our industrial law. I hope that even employers will realise that it is likely to cause far more problems for them than it will solve for others.
Part III has, of course, nothing—either good or bad—to do with industrial relations. It is about politics; and party politics at that. It represents a transparent attempt to cause financial difficulties to the Labour party, and to undermine the Opposition's effectiveness. Let us look at the facts surrounding the political funds of trade unions. Those funds are already tightly, and uniquely in this country, regulated by statute. Following the Osborne judgment of 1910, when the other place wrongly held that trade unions could not have political funds and that such funds were illegal, the Trade Union Act was passed in 1913 by the then Liberal Government. Ever since, that has regulated trade union political funds. Trade union members have always been free—by individual choice, which they exercise for themselves—not to contribute to the union's political fund: a fund which required a democratic decision to be established in the first place.
That right is not available to shareholders in companies. Indeed, many of those who are not Conservatives are forced to contribute to the Conservative party's funds, because of the decisions of company boards, whose only obligation is to disclose the fact and amount of the contribution long after it has been made. The Government may say—and the Secretary of State said as much today — that despite the legal right to contract out that is enshrined in statute, and which 1·5 million people exercise, trade unionists are in practice not free to do so. Let us look at the facts. The political fund rules are closely supervised by the certification officer. Between 1977 and 1982 the number of union members making complaints about alleged breaches of political fund rules ranged from

12 to 24 per year. The only exception was in 1979, when there were 105 complaints. That was an abnormally high figure, because 76 of the complaints were made by members of one onion at one workplace. During the six years in question, only nine formal hearings by the certification officer were necessary. Those are the facts about the complaints made by members. That is the recent history.
Before that, the Donovan commission, which reported in 1968, found that it had no reason to recommend any change in the Trade Union Act 1913. That was not some device that was organised by the Labour party. Therefore, it is just not true to allege—as the Secretary of State does—that members are not free to contract out, nor is it borne out by the facts. Therefore, there can be no reason for the attack made in the Bill on political funds.
In the Green Paper the Government recommend contracting in as the most favoured option, but that is not as yet in the Bill. Nevertheless, it is clearly to be held in reserve by the Secretary of State, and it may well be introduced at a later stage. If contracting in is introduced instead of contracting out, we shall simply be returning to the practices of the period between 1927 and 1946, when it was imposed on the unions because it harmed the Labour party. That was the motive then, and that is the motive now.
Similarly, the proposal to hold compulsory 10-yearly ballots of trade unions to decide whether they should have a political fund at all—although such a fund was set up only because they decided to have it, and can decide at any time whether to have it—is simply intended to cause regular and divisive ballots within trade unions on the question of their relationship with the Labour party. What is glaringly obvious about whatever provisions the Government make now or later concerning the political funds of trade unions is that they propose no limitations whatever on the sources of funds for the Conservative party from British private sector companies. There is no requirement for a ballot of shareholders on the question of political funds. There is no provision for consulting them at all at any stage. There is no right for a dissident—be he a shareholder, employee, indirect shareholder through a pension, or customer—to stop assets in which he has an interest being channelled into the coffers of the Conservative party. No contracting out or in is allowed to inhibit the Conservative party's fund-raising efforts.
We are disturbed not only by the 10-yearly compulsory ballots and the threat of contracting in but by the new definitions of political activity in the Bill. They do not represent mere harmless updating in the light of new circumstances. They have been carefully prepared to cause the maximum difficulties for trade unions in administering their political funds. Carefully laid statutory traps are being put in place to foster the harassment through litigation techniques adopted by the Association of Conservative Trade Unionists and the so-called Freedom Association, which will be very busy once the Bill is enacted. We shall return to these matters in Committee, and seek to expose the vindictiveness underlying such provisions. The Committee stage will also give us the opportunity to expose the weaknesses of an incredibly badly drafted Bill, which will not only cause harm, but may not work at all in the way in which its authors intended. Their intentions are not good.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister said that trade unions should not be a fourth estate of the realm.


She preferred the role of trade unions to be limited to the workplace or enterprise. She felt that the connection between the Labour party and the unions was wrong. I am quoting her words almost exactly. In other words, unions should be regarded as having a diminished, minor and non-political role.
This Bill is an attempt to put the Prime Minister's views into practice and into the laws of the land. It is a blatant attempt by the Government to use the power of Parliament to alter the balance of power in the state to the advantage of the Government of the day. We are now familiar with the Prime Minister's authoritarian techniques. If Ministers do not agree with her, they are sacked;if Back Benchers do not practise deference and sycophancy to the required degree, they remain unpromoted. If local authorities dare to challenge the Government on the basis of their elected mandate, they are not only centrally controlled, but abolished. Because trade unions oppose her, trade union rights are to be curbed. In the most audacious stroke of all, the Opposition's funds are to be attacked in an attempt to make them less effective. These are the suspect motives behind the Bill.
Because the Bill will do serious damage to both industrial relations and political fairness, we shall not only fight it with vigour and determination but, when we come to power as we will, we shall repeal it and replace it with legislation that reinstates the principles that this Government seek to abandon.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: It is with more than a small amount of astonishment that I find myself speaking at this point in the debate, which I thought was reserved for members of the Privy Council. I wonder whether there has been some announcement of which you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but which I have not observed. It is one of the agreeable traditions of the House that in the middle of debates of great importance, when passions rage and great interest is taken in the details of some difficult point, a new hon. Member can rise and take the House on a grand tour of his constituency and give a potted history of his forebears. With 150 new hon. Members having been elected, the House has had to have much greater forebearance than usual. Most maiden speeches have now been made, but I hope that the few maiden speakers remaining can dispel the idea that in this gargantuan feast of maiden speeches all the main courses have gone, and all that is left are the puddings—although there may be a few cabinet puddings among us.
As the first Member of Parliament for Tatton, I am proud to stand here this afternoon. It is an odd name for a constituency, and during the election campaign I had the task of explaining, not only who I was, but where my constituents were because most people were not familiar with the name. The name comes from Tatton park and Tatton hall—a house designed by Samuel Wyatt—which lie in the heart of my constituency at Knutsford. It is a varied constituency with a residential section at Wilmslow and Handforth, a farming section around Knutsford and an industrial section around Northwich. Hon. Members may know that Knutsford was celebrated in Mrs Gaskell's novel "Cranford".
Because it is such a varied constituency, it contains people from all walks of life and all social classes. Although parts of my constituency are undoubtedly affluent, other parts have industrial problems. ICI started

in my constituency at Northwich, and Sir John Brunner, one of its founders, was a former Liberal Member of Parliament for that part of the constituency. The constituency also contains the Octel company, 250 of whose workers have recently been told that their jobs are in danger because of the Government's decision to phase out lead in petrol. I shall certainly speak on that matter in the weeks ahead in an attempt to alleviate the damage that has been caused, not specifically by the Government but also by the Opposition parties who have responded hysterically to the problem.
I am one of the few hon. Members in the House who can claim to have salt mines in his constituency. If ever the Red revolution arrives, I look forward to welcoming a great many of my right hon. and hon. Friends as my constituents, and perhaps one or two Opposition Members also. However, as I understand that the zeal of the Leader of the Opposition for a Red revolution is receding as quickly as his hairline, such a prospect is remote.
The constituency comprises parts of four former constituencies. As hon. Members who represented three of those constituencies are still in the House, I must be nice about them. I refer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), who is not only my Whip, but the pairing Whip, so I must be especially nice to him. I must not forget that my noble Friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne was formerly the Member for Knutsford and he, to paraphrase Disraeli, is very much alive
but in the Elysian fields
of another place. I pay a generous tribute to the work of them all and hope to carry on in their traditions.
My constituency has also been represented by people whom hon. Members who have been in the House for some time may recall. For example, there was Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport, who had two great attributes for a politician. He had the loudest voice in the House and was an Army boxing champion. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) told me yesterday that one of his ancestors represented mid-Cheshire — a Mr. Egerton Leigh. His main preoccupation during his three years in the House was to bring in the criminal penalty of flogging for wife beaters. That would not appeal to my hon. Friend who, I am sure, would regard it as dangerously liberal.
Despite all the huffing and puffing from Opposition Members to which we have listened this afternoon, I believe the Bill to be modest and with limited objects. The hysterical reaction from its opponents is wholly out of place. I hope that there will be less of that now that the "Prince of Darkness" has been moved to another Ministry and we have the King on the Front Bench.
The Bill is part of the Government's step-by-step approach to reform in industrial relations. Not everyone agrees with a step-by-step approach. Many people believe that when walking through a minefield the fewer steps taken the better—especially if the ground plan is not well known. The major philosophical issues that surround the immunity possessed by trade unions for the past 70 or 80 years are not the issues today. A great many Conservative Members will return to the question of whether immunity, in any shape or form, is justified. As I must be uncontroversial today, I shall not wander into that minefield.
The main reason the Bill has come before the House this afternoon is the non-co-operation of those who are the prime candidates for Conservative assistance. Mr. Moss Evans has said that he would prefer to go to gaol than swallow another dose of trade union law. He has said—and many Opposition Members agree with him—that democracy is solely a union matter and not something with which the House should be concerned.
But I accept the view written in an editorial in The Guardian recently, which said:
Unions have great power to damage the economy and the humane running of society. They retain substantial immunity from normal legal proceedings when they exercise those powers. They have the ability to influence the shape of politics by pumping millions of pounds into the coffers of the Labour Party. They retain great power to coerce the individual … Finally unions demand the right to participate in all aspects of national policy making, from the arts to education, from trade with Chile to a non-nuclear defence strategy.
If unions purport to have those powers and to play that part in our national life, Parliament must control the way in which they run themselves. Trade unions, like companies, are creatures of statute, and the statutes by which they are governed can be altered by this House.
It ill becomes the Socialist planners in the Opposition, while seeking to plan the detail of everybody's life, to say, "Hands off the unions." What great issue of principle is involved? Is it the provision of funds for ballots in trade unions? They did not object to the provision of funds for the training of shop stewards under the 1975 legislation. No great issue of principle is involved.
Under the Trade Union Act 1913, which has already been mentioned, trade union members voted on whether there should be a political fund at all. All the Bill seeks to do is to bring that Act up to date. Those 1913 trade union voters are now dead and buried, although many of them may still be affiliated to the Labour party because of the byzantine way in which the unions calculate the political levy to that organisation. All we seek to do is to give trade union members of today the rights of trade union members of 1913. The Trades Union Congress has failed to respond to the Government's invitation for consultations even though 150 other organisations and individuals responded to it. The union leaders therefore have only themselves to blame for their present predicament. The misuse of the block vote and the lack of real consultation with members on many issues has produced abuses which it is the duty of the Government to resolve. The gap between the minority who run the trade unions and the majority whom they purport to represent has been growing in recent years and has been the subject of great political debate.
The Government have a mandate for the reforms proposed in the Bill. Mr. Scargill has said that we do not have a mandate because we received only 42 per cent. of the vote, but did he object when the Employment Protection Act 1975 was passed by a Government who had only 38 per cent. of the votes at that time? Of course he did not. Between us, the Conservatives, the Social Democrats and Liberals—who broadly support the same types of policy on trade unions — we received 68 per cent. of the vote at the general election. It is strange to find those hon. and right hon. Members who oppose these

moderate and simple reforms—the forces of so-called social progress—allying themselves with the attitude of George III towards the pre-1832 British constitution—
Perfection as by law established
—who said
No, no, I will have no innovations in my time.
We are determined to get this innovation. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) would agree with the statement by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, although he said it in jest in another context, that
We do not believe the Bill to be necessary but even if it were we should oppose it.
The Labour party research department has described the Bill as a threat to democracy. This is the first time that I have heard that giving the vote to people is a threat to democracy. There are parts of the world where it is bad form for the electorate to interfere with the results of an election but those are not generally regarded as countries which we would wish to emulate.
Many unions bar from office those who are not paid-up Labour party members or contributors to its political fund. The NUR is an example. I believe that those who stand for election to unions as executive officers are in many cases unable to promote their candidature because if they criticise the union leadership it is described as bringing the trade union into disrepute and they are therefore debarred from office in that union.
The varying procedure for election has been made a virtue by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. The procedure varies from union to union, but there are many abuses in the block vote system as I am sure any open-minded and reasonable person would admit.
We all know of meetings where votes are taken on a show of hands in a room packed with activists. They are held on stormy nights in the middle of winter and are not properly advertised to the members, some of whom are unable to attend. I read in the Financial Times of 24 January of a member of the NUR who wanted to vote in the election for Sidney Weighell's successor. He was a Left-winger himself but was prevented from voting because the meeting was held at the time he was driving his train.
The electoral system in trade unions needs reform to make it more uniform. It is a mistake to think that, as a result of introducing these reforms, the Left wing, as it is broadly described, will never take control of a trade union. That is a fallacy because the Oxford management centre has analysed the rule books of 102 trade unions in a study which shows that four out of the eight unions with full postal voting systems are broadly run by the Left wing. Therefore, Opposition Members who are fearful for their future or for the future of their comrades are being too pessimistic.
The Bill also proposes a major reform of the political fund. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said with great pride that few people had been brought before the certification officer to complain that they had been prevented from contracting out of their political levy. As is well known it is difficult, because of the circumstances of particular industries and the way people are pressured socially, for them to kick up a fuss. But there is a good example of a Mr. Jack Cleminson, who was a member of the Post Office Engineers Union and who for 12 years, year in, year out, asked for his political levy to be returned


to him but was refused. He tried to distribute "opting-out" leaflets to other members of the union at his workplace and was threatened with the loss of his job. He received no refund of the political levy so he went to the certification officer and, because he disagreed with the decision of the officer, he had to go to the High Court before he got justice. His experience cannot be justified in our society.
Is it so intolerable merely to ask that unions should be governed more democratically? Is it so wrong to suggest that union members should decide once in a while whether they want to pay into a political fund? The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who, I am happy to see, is no longer in the Chamber, said that this would lead to the crippling of the Labour party. Between 1927 and 1946, as has already been pointed out, the Labour party was not dependent on funds received in the present way. In 1945 Anthony Eden said that
If that means they are crippled, they look pretty healthy cripples to me.
The Bill sensibly proposes no criminal sanctions. Union members can enforce the provisions on the election of officers and companies and directly injured parties can sue if no strike ballot is held. A point which did not come out sufficiently in the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East is that the result of ballots will not be binding in law on the unions. All that is required is that there should be a ballot so that we know whether members of the union support the action that is proposed. Immunity is conferred whether or not the result goes in favour of the union executive.
I see no dangers to democracy as a result of the Bill—quite the reverse. The Bill is not perfect and hon. Members who serve on the Committee will seek to make various alterations. Does "Industrial action" in clause 6 cover an overtime ban of the type that the National Union of Mineworkers is now operating? There is nothing in the Bill about procedure agreements and nothing about strikes in essential services.
We said in our manifesto five months ago that the nation is entitled to expect that the operation of essential services should not be disrupted. There may be further drops of trade union reform in the future. I believe that this is a useful measure. The majority of the British people will support it, the majority of trade unionists will support it and a majority in the House will support it. I shall be proud to be in the Lobby this evening to support it also.

Mr. Ron Leighton: It is a pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) on his excellent maiden speech. It was entertaining, lucid and, as one would expect from a lawyer, cogently argued. I looked quickly through the hon. Gentleman's biographical notes and noticed that his recreations are listed as "silence" and appreciation of the countryside. We hope that he will continue his appreciation of the countryside and I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that I hope that he will forgo his trappist inclinations and that we will hear often from him in the future.
This is a mean, nasty and noxious Bill which continues the Government's vendetta against the trade unions. It is another move to seek to undermine and weaken workers' organisations. It is another turn of the screw and another pull on the ratchet to cripple, fetter and neuter trade unions. The Government are motivated by animosity and

hostility to trade unions. The ideologues who now sit on the Government Front Bench believe that the market economy would work far better without trade unions. They do not like trade unions and they would like to squeeze them out and have a union-free society. It appears from their record that they are working towards this end with a new Bill every two years. There is already the threat of another Bill to deal with workers in public services. The cumulative effect of all this legislation is to emasculate and destroy free trade unions. Aided by massive unemployment, they want to replace free trade unions by docile state-controlled, state-registered, state-regulated and state-licensed trade unions. General Jaruzelski would be proud of them.
Eventually the Government will get their comeuppance and this whole effort will fail. I find their flatulent, windy rhetoric about democracy nauseating humbug. We it the trade union movement do not need lessons from the Government about democracy because we know all about it. We live by ballots and democracy. When I was a member of the administration of chapels in the printing industry, I was elected and re-elected by secret ballot every three months. Members who did not attend chapel meetings could be fined by the union for non-attendance. That is another reason why we do not need lessons from Conservative Members about democracy.
I have with me a document issued by my branch, the London machine branch of SOGAT — 82, and the envelope in which it is to be returned to the union. It shows that we even elect by secret ballot the scrutineers who conduct our ballots. I am told in this document by my branch secretary that the paper must be returned by Monday, 28 November and it says:
Members are reminded of the serious responsibility to choose who shall represent their interests, and all members are therefore urged to exercise their right to vote. Failure to return your Ballot Paper to the Scrutineers may result in your being fined in accordance with Branch Rule 7 Clause (d).
As I say, we live by democracy. As citizens, in the last four years we have voted in one general and one local election. As members of trade unions we have voted on numerous occasions on trade union matters.
The Green Paper pompously pontificates in paragraph 6:
The right to vote in secret for the candidate of one's choice is now widely accepted as one of the fundamental rights in any democratic society or organisation.
Those are the standards the Government set, but how do the other great institutions of our national life measure up to those principles? The workers in our major companies have little say in their activities; who elects the boss? Industrial democracy is virtually non-existent in those terms. Consider the pension funds into which we pay. There are few workers with a say on the boards of those organisations. What about the banks into which our wages are paid automatically? What say do the workers have over who runs the banks or the policies they follow? How many ballots take place there? As for the press, most of which Rupert Murdoch and Lord Matthews own, what say do the readers have in the policy of those papers? And what democracy and secret ballots are there down the Corridor in the House of Lords?
Let us consider the Conservative party. Who elects its leader? Where is the secret ballot for her or him, as the case may be? There is none, yet the Prime Minister has almost unlimited power. Consider the appointment of the chairman of the Conservative party. He is elected by an


electoral college of one. In my union his equivalent is elected by a ballot vote of the members. Provided the chairman of the Conservative party is obsequious to his mistress, he can stay in office for as long as is necessary.
Not only the chairman, but the deputy chairman, treasurer and all the officials of the party are selected in the same way. Yet the chairman of the Conservative party has the gall, the impudence, the brass neck to lecture trade unionists about democracy. It is a wonder that he does not again grow a beard to cover his blushes. The Conservative party must be one of the most undemocratic organisations in the country. To be lectured by its members is too much.
I am not against democracy and the election of officials, but it is for the unions to decide the nature of their democracy and constitutions; it is for each union freely to decide, not for the state to impose a uniform straitjacket. After all, there are as many different forms of democracy as there are unions, just as there are as many different constitutions as countries. For example, the United States, France and West Germany have different ways of electing their Governments, but who is to say that they are not democratic? Anyone who has worked in industry knows that shop stewards and union officials are accountable to their members every day of their working lives. I repeat, we in the trade union movement do not need advice from Conservative Members on how to run our democracy.
In most cases a ballot takes place before there is a strike, but unions will object to being forced to have ballots in the way the Government want. Anyone would imagine from the way Conservative Members speak that the main function of union officials was to organise strikes, when the truth is the opposite. I understand that a television programme is in the vaults of Channel 4 replete with trade union members' criticisms of their officials for not supporting them in strikes. Most trade unionists have never been on strike in their lives and they would certainly never strike lightly. After all, when there is a strike they and their families suffer because they lose wages, so they strike only when there is an extremely strong grievance. Even in 1978–79, which embraced the winter of discontent, there were 10 times as many days lost through sickness as were lost through strikes.
I predict that the Bill will fail because it deals with what are called "authorised and enforced actions." The vast majority of strikes last for only a day, so it will not cover those. Nor will unofficial action be caught, yet most action is unofficial. It will put a premium on unofficial action; it will promote anarchy in industry because in future, even when trade union officials want to organise unofficial action, they will have to do it on a nod and wink basis. In other words, they will be forced to organise and connive at unofficial action. That is the sort of situation that the Government are introducing into industry.
Considering what might be called the few big set-piece national strikes, we must remember that the power to hold strike ballots existed under the Industrial Relations Act between 1971 and 1974. That power was used once, in 1972, on the railways, when on an 85 per cent. vote of railwaymen there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the union and industrial action.
We know from American experience under the Taft-Hartley laws that during the 35 years when those provisions were in force, of 163 ballots, the employers last offer was rejected in 155. In other words, the Bill is more

likely to cause and prolong disputes, and I emphasise "prolong" because the Secretary of State may recall his ignominious and counter-productive role in the water strike. That strike ended the day after the officials made a settlement. A ballot held afterwards could have taken much longer. If unions are forced by law to hold a ballot before a strike, they may voluntarily include this provision to call off a strike. This is no wonder cure.
The Government show how vindictive they are when dealing with political funds. It is an exhibition of naked prejudice. The credibility of this measure is eroded by its one-sidedness. It aims to attack the Labour party's funds and to leave the Conservative party's funds alone. The House knows that that is the truth. In Committee a searchlight will be shone on the way funds for the Conservatives are raised. Many of the firms that contribute to the Conservative party want something in return. I believe there is an air of corruption about this, which will be revealed in Committee.
Half of the trade unions are not affiliated to the Labour party and the members of those unions that are members can contract out. Can shareholders in companies contract out? As customers, are we aware, when buying sugar, that Mr. Cube is bankrolling the Tory party? Do people know that they are making a contribution to the Conservative party when they drink Taylor-Walker's, Fuller's or McEwan's beer? Do the people who eat Hovis bread know that they are contributing to the Conservative party's funds? Do they know, when they insure their houses with the Sun Alliance Insurance Group, that they are bankrolling this bunch of idealogues on the Government Front Bench? Do they know that they are contributing to the Government when they patronise Trusthouse Forte plc? This is an act of naked malice and prejudice.
The Labour party has seen the public opinion polls, and it feels the wind in its sails. [Laughter.] Conservative Members will laugh on the other side of their faces when they see the industrial chaos their Bill will cause. I look forward to the day when we sweep away all anti-union legislation and start an era of co-operation, not confrontation, with the trade unions.

Sir Ian Percival: I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) on his maiden speech. My hon. Friend represents a beautiful part of the country, peopled by voters of mature political conviction who have sent to the House a series of hon. Members who have contributed greatly. They are to be congratulated again, as is my hon. Friend who has made such a happy start to his speaking career in the House.
I agree also with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) — on one thing — in congratulating the Secretary of State on his assuming the responsibilities of his present post and presenting his first Bill at the Dispatch Box. The importance of his post and the complexity of this part of his duty are beyond doubt. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having remastered this side of his duties so quickly. Such criticism as I shall offer is not of the Secretary of State or his predecessor, but of general policy. Yes, we keep doing something—most of what we do is useful—but we are just plodding on too slowly. I hope that we shall use this Bill as a vehicle for moving both further and faster.
I do not need to tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-East and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East what they know already, because we have so often taken part in debates on these matters, that I disagree strongly with most of what they have said. In my view, both indulged in what the hon. Member for Newham, North-East himself described as "flatulent, windy rhetoric". Goodness knows how they could become so excited about so mild a measure.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East said that the Government were consumed with animosity towards the trade unions and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East talked about a "mean, nasty vendetta" and also used the word "animosity". That is bunkum. I know of no Government Member who entertains any of those feelings. [Laughter.] The Opposition may try to laugh it off, but they are representing no one's interests by talking in such terms. That is "flatulent, windy rhetoric", to use the words of the hon. Gentleman himself. It serves only to confuse—and it is so important that we do not allow ourselves to be confused when debating this complex subject. In no other field of law is there more misunderstanding about the role of the law than in industrial relations.
First, some people seem to believe that lawyers, by some magic, ought to be able to make a law that would itself produce good industrial relations. That is rubbish also. Good industrial relations involve good human relations and start with responsibility by those at the top—in management and in the unions.
Secondly, some trade unionists—I am happy to think that the number is falling—have believed, as some still do, that the law should be used to allow them to do what they choose. They talk of immunities as rights rather than privileges. The Labour party in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974—which we amended—and in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 brought all types of industrial action within the immunities given by section 13 of the 1974 Act. Anyone who describes that as a right starts from the wrong bus stop. If that was not "privilege" I have never seen any. However, I am glad to think that fewer trade unionists take that view.
Thirdly, some on the other side of the spectrum want us to use the law for union bashing, and I believe that is equally wrong. That type of tough approach does no one any good. If anyone talked about bashing me, I would see him in hell first—even if I thought he was right.
No, Sir, the purpose of the law in this field is to strike a balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of groups; between big groups and small groups; even between large and small unions, as arose when we were discussing the 1974 Bill and the position of the National Union of Journalists and the Institute of Journalists; between the freedom for those who engage in industrial action to do so without victimisation and the right for the rest of us to enjoy our freedoms too and to be compensated by those who cause us damage.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East was correct in saying that we are seeking in this Bill to change that balance. However, we are seeking only a mild change and one which is necessary because the scales are tipped too far one way. Even with this Bill I think that the balance is still too far the wrong way. The modest proposals in the Bill have not gone far enough.
I wish to put forward three matters which have always seemed to me of prime importance in relationships between management and men and those who are affected by a dispute between them although not a party to it. I refer to secondary action, selective action, and protection for the man who wishes to continue to work but who does not dare to do so in case he finds that his job is no longer open to him after the strike.
In addition, we may have to study the definition of "trade disputes" after the Court of Appeal has given its decison in Mercury, which I understand is tomorrow, although it may not, of course, be the end of those proceedings.
I agree also with my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton who mentioned procedure agreements in his maiden speech. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East correctly said that in many unions there has never been a strike. I think one will usually find that where that has occurred there is a good procedure agreement, one which comes into operation quickly, and therefore the need for a strike does not arise.
I want to remind the House about some aspects of secondary action. In its Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill 1974, the Labour party sought to give the widest possible protection to any action which was in breach of or interfered with an employment or commercial contract. The Conservative party, then in opposition, made the Labour party's Bill more reasonable by cutting out the extensions contained in clause 13 which would have given protection in respect of commercial contracts. That was done by a team comprised of the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the former Member for Cities of London and Westminster, Mr. Tugendhat, now one of the European commissioners, the present Minister of State, Treasury with responsibility for the Civil Service and myself supported by others including the present Home Secretary and the present Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Energy. We reduced enormously the immunity and privileges which the Labour Government would have given. But in 1976 the Labour Government had a big enough majority to do what they had tried to do in 1974 but which happily had then been stopped. It seemed that even so matters might not be all that bad when the case of McShane was dealt with by the Court of Appeal. But when that case went to the House of Lords Judicial Committee, it was plain that Conservative fears had been fully justified and that we had been right in cutting back the immunity proposed.
Then came section 17 of the Employment Act 1980. That section does not protect a party who is not a party to the dispute. There is still immunity for action taken against the first supplier and first customer and even further, although they are not parties to a dispute. I, of course, do not expect my right hon. Friend to deal with all these matters at this stage of the Bill, but I hope that he will bear them in mind with a view to doing something about them in the later stages.
It is also worth reminding the House that section 17 has been described as the worst piece of legislation that the courts have ever seen. I hope that we can improve it and tidy it up. An amendment was put forward in the other place by Lords Orr-Ewing, Spens, and Renton. It would have achieved those objectives. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider these matters during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Leighton: Do I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman aright when he says that he is against giving immunity to action against first suppliers and first customers? If my memory serves me right, that was dealt with in a previous Bill when he was a Law Officer of the Crown. He came at our request to explain matters and told us that we had the balance right.

Sir Ian Percival: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I was a member of the Government when section 17 was enacted. He is correct to say that, at the Committee's invitation, not once but twice, I offered advice as Law Officer. That advice did not include any political consideration such as whether the balance was correct or not.
Part II will have a marginal effect on section 17 because without a ballot the immunity provided by that section will not exist. But I hope my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that that effect is only marginal. It does not deal with either of the two points I have raised about section 17—the immunity it gives is too wide and its wording needs improving. Part II will have a marginal effect also on selective action. In my view, there is something almost indecent when about half a dozen people halt an operation and then everyone on whose behalf they are taking that action turns up with no work to do and expects to be paid. I hope that during the lifetime of this Parliament we shall consider the question of "lay-off" in those circumstances. However, all the union would have to do is—I am thinking of the six ladies who issued stamps and brought the Post Office to a halt—would be to ballot the six people involved.
There is some force in some of the points that have been raised about balloting. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends have them in mind. I am equally sure that those who deal wth the Bill in Committee—I hope that I shall not be one of them, and I hope that I am an old enough hand to ensure that I am not—

Mr. Harry Cowans: Will there be a ballot?

Sir Ian Percival: Yes, I will offer some odds. Where something is almost obligatory—I know that the union has choice here, but there is some force in the argument that it has no real choice—the union may well feel that it has to win the ballot and be tempted to put forward all kinds of pressures and perhaps all this hardens the dispute.
One hopes that that possibility can be guarded against. There is some danger for that it gives those who engage in unofficial strikes an advantage and perhaps tempts them to strike unofficially. I have in mind what was said by the Donovan commission on that subject. I recognise the dangers, but half the battle is recognising them. I hope, with my right hon. Friend, that it is not beyond the wit of man to reach some accommodation which will ensure that when the Bill becomes law it will have the intended result. I am sure that no Conservative Members, in voting for it as we all shall, would wish to produce that result.
I shall summarise my points about each part of the Bill in reverse order. All that I have heard about part III from the Opposition today is more "flatulent and windy rhetoric". That part makes little difference to the Bill. Part II removes immunity from secondary and primary action where the provisions are not complied with, but it does

nothing to clarify the law about when that immunity exists. It is extremely complicated, and I can see the difficulties that might arise if the Committee cannot improve it.
Part I is also complicated, but no doubt my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members will discuss it in more detail. Its objectives are right, but even in this third Bill we have not even reached the position we achieved in the Labour Government's own Bill in 1974, when we Conservatives introduced the unanimous recommendations of the Donovan commission on compulsory rules for unions. Those recommendations included model lilies for elections and said that there must be elections to the governing bodies of unions, although these did not I think specify the interval of those elections. The report contained many provisions about internal matters to which there would be little, if any, objection. Hon. Members on both sides of the House might think it worthwhile considering the recommendations of the Donovan commission, the introduction of which might help to solve some of the problems.
I mentioned three other topics — the man who is afraid to go to work, the definition of trade disputes and procedure agreements — but I should trespass on the generosity of the House if I took up more time. I appreciate the fact that my right hon. Friend has had little time to get the feel once again of such matters, which are complicated and which have so many sides. I hope that with this Bill he will find a way of dealing a little more firmly with some of the problems to which I referred. It must be given a Second Reading, but I hope that Conservative Members and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will view it as a vehicle for substantially more improvement than would be achieved by the Bill in its present form. I wish it well.

Mr. David Penhaligon: We heard a clear and confident maiden speech by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who I have no doubt will address the House often. He has the ability to string ideas together and to hold one's attention as he expresses his views. However, I wonder what has happened to the tradition that was explained to me when I made my maiden speech, which was that on no account must it be controversial. We have heard controversial maiden speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House during this Parliament, and perhaps we might consider changing the rule about that. One hopes that some new Labour Members especially will not make even more controversial speeches in their political lives. However, I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton, who did the job rather well.
The Bill is one of a long series of trade union Bills, and the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) referred to some of the Bills that have been presented since I have been a Member of the House. As a Liberal Member, I reflect that yet another Bill has come before the House but that no progress has been made towards the Liberal dream of an industrial society where those who work in an industry—those who have given their lives, energy and sometimes genius to it—have a system whereby they know automatically that they will share in the profits generated by their great enterprise, and that their opinions and ideas about how their company should be run will be taken into consideration. It is a great tragedy but, as so often happens, Liberal Members are forced to consider the legislation presented to them. It is


a great shame that the Bill will produce no diminution in the "them and us" attitude in industry. It might make "them" a bit stronger and "us" a bit weaker, but the Labour party claims already that if it gets the chance it will make "us" stronger and "them" weaker. I do not know for how long the nation will conduct industrial relations and treat the lifeblood of our economic prosperity on that basis.
The Bill has three parts, and the clause that I find positively supportable is that which compels secret ballots for the election of trade union leaders. There is no rational reason why an Opposition Member should be against that, and I noticed some flexibility in the Government, who appear to recognise that there may be difficulties in some cases. The Minister referred to difficulties with seamen, and if other difficulties can be brought forward sensibly the Government may be willing to incorporate modifications in the basic legislation. The argument for secret ballots for those who wish to lead their unions is overwhelming, and my union contacts in the large union membership of the far south-west have told me that there will be considerable support and sympathy for that clause.
It may be worth considering whether we should encourage giving the candidates standing for leadership equal access to members' names and addresses, and equal opportunities for them to state their views. Perhaps this is not the time for such argument, but if there are elections where the official and established union candidate has the machinations of the union behind him, but the maverick who is trying to change the union's policies does not have the opportunity to express his views, the House would be justified in worrying about that and in returning to the matter. However, as it stands, that part of the Bill is supportable and the clause will be an improvement.
Another clause, which is not as good as the first one I mentioned, but which does not drive me to paranoia, provides that in future unions must prove that their members want a political fund. I am aware, despite the claims of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), that the contracting-out procedure is not as satisfactory as he would have the House believe. I remember pursuing with the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers the case of a constituent, and in the end I received an assurance from the leader of the union that when my constituent died all the political levies that he had paid would be returned to his widow. My constituent could have turned up at each branch meeting and collected his penny or tuppence a week, but he did not wish to do that. Such action cannot be justified, and a union does neither itself nor the Labour party much good by insisting on such lunacies when clearly my constituent was paying a political levy against his judgment and will.

Mr. John Evans: Why does the hon. Gentleman say that that man had to turn up at every branch meeting to collect a penny or tuppence? All that he had to do was to obtain a contracting-out form from his branch secretary, not from the general secretary of the union, fill it in, and he would not have had to pay the political levy again.

Mr. Penhaligon: That is interesting. The rule book might say that, but I can bring the letter for the hon. Gentleman. I recall it well because I was outraged by it at the time. It said that a member of the AUEW had to pay the political levy. In certain circumstances it could be reclaimed but it had to be paid. Whatever the arrangements

are, 98 per cent. of the members of the AUEW are in the political fund and the idea that only 2 per cent of that union do not support the Labour party is to stretch fantasy beyond the reason of hon. Members. The AUEW must be the most remarkably solid Labour-supporting union.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that not only did he wrongly advise his constituent but he has the figures for those contracted out of the AUEW wrong? Will he accept that only 15 complaints have been made to the certification officer this year and that there has been no formal hearing of any complaint in the past nine months?

Mr. Penhaligon: We heard that from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. It may welt be true but it does not tell us what percentage of the AUEW membership has succeeded in contracting out. The Bill will be discussed at great length and we shall return to that point.
The largest town in my constituency is St. Austell. It is dominated by large trade unions because there is an employer who employs many thousands of people and they do a superb job for their membership. I do not criticise them at all. However, the irony in St. Austell is that the management of that company makes great efforts to send thousands of pounds a year to the Conservative party and the unions apply great pressure on their members to raise thousands of pounds for the Labour party. Fortunately, there is as yet no sign of anybody in St. Austell supporting either of those parties, but it says something about the way in which we finance politics in Britain.
There is something to be said for an assumption in law that a union can run a political fund if it wants to. Any member can contract in to that political fund. Even if only a minority wants a political fund, I see no reason why that minority should not be able to exercise its right on an individual basis by contracting in to paying the political levy. Unions could greatly increase their influence on the House and the nation in general if a second opportunity were given to the individual to state which party he would like the money sent to. Members of the Transport and General Workers Union who contracted in to giving money to the Conservative party might well have more influence on the Government and the way in which Britain is run. That contrasts with the present system which pretends that every union member in Britain is anti-Conservative. We all know that that is not true. It never has been true and the evidence of the general election was that it is probably less true now than it has been for any union for some considerable time.
Unions could improve their influence on British life by contracting in and I would be willing to support a clause which made the political fund automatic so that people had to contract in. The real criticism of this proposal is that it is completely one-sided. I do not know whether Tory Members really believe that British politics would be better if there were less money for research and organisation, but British politics is already terrifyingly under-financed, as I know from my party. The Labour party is in a better position. Even the Conservative party, which is clearly the best financed political party in Britain, despite the fact that I may criticise the way in which it spends its money, does not show an excess of research, application or genius in the way in which it prepares its


manifestos. No hon. Member who believes in democracy has an interest in passing legislation which, in the final analysis, must substantially reduce the money going into British politics. We should be facing up to the reality of the state financing of political parties, but that does not come within the Bill.
If the Government want to be fair they should introduce a system whereby shareholders vote on whether they wanted their managing directors to contribute to the Conservative party. That is obvious. I am not as sure as Conservative Members appear to be that they would receive the majority vote. If the pensions funds asked their members how they wanted their funds to be applied, there might not be overwhelming support among the share-owning section of British society to give money to the Conservative party. In that respect the Bill is one-sided. It is not a good proposal. It recognises the problem but the solution is not fair. It is regarded as fair politics in Britain for the Government to wangle every rule possible to kick the Opposition. I have no doubt that the alternative has happened in the past, and that is to be regretted in a democratic system.
The second part of the Bill worries me most. There is to be no immunity for official strikes without ballots. I worked in an industry before being elected to the House. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and I appear to be the only two Members who have spoken in the debate who have spent much time working in industry. However, the Government's basic point sounds reasonable. To say that there should be no immunity for official strikes without a ballot sounds so reasonable that any platform speaker in Britain could carry his audience with him. However, will it work out as well as Conservative Members think on the shop floor, inside the factory gate? It will make wildcat strikes more likely. The Minister said that it would make them less likely, but I would be interested to hear his evidence. At best, the position will remain much as it is now.
Let me take an example and ask the Minister if my understanding of the Bill is right. It is not far from a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Southport. Let us assume that a new bonus scheme was introduced on the shop floor which caused the capstan operators to walk out. Would that strike be within the law if a ballot among the capstan operators alone showed that the majority supported such action? I see that the Minister nods. I am pleased, because that is not the impression that the Bill gives. If the House is about to approve legislation as a result of which microcosms on the factory floor can declare an official strike simply by balloting among themselves as the group most affected, angered and outraged, we could end up with more official strikes than previously.

Mr. Leighton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if capstan operators could walk out without any vote at all the unofficial action would not be caught by the legislation?

Mr. Penhaligon: That is true, but my point was that it would be easy for them to make the strike official because they would have to ballot only among themselves, not the whole union. The Minister nodded when I made that point, although Labour Members shake their heads. I hope that the Minister will mention that point when he

replies. Even if the interpretation of Labour Members is right, people will ask why they should risk a ballot and suggest instead that they call out a few key workers. That will be just as effective, and, provided no paid union officials are involved, I see little likelihood of the Government getting them under the Act. Shop floor disputes often start in a random manner, as a reaction to anger and outrage, and are not generated by shop stewards.
Part II is not necessarily all bad, but many questions must be asked about it. I fear that the Government may be introducing a measure that will make industrial relations on the shop floor more chaotic, and against the general improvement of British industry. My party will vote for the Bill on Second Reading. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have to vote one way or the other. At least when it came to cruise missiles we did not abstain like the Labour party.
There are many questions to be answered before we give any guarantee to vote for the measure on Third Reading. I have honestly outlined my reaction to the Bill. I warn the Government that the clause on immunities may be worse than current legislation, and against the general interest of British industry.

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). I shall deal with a point that he mentioned, to which I intended to refer in my speech. The hon. Gentleman suggested that contributions might be made to the Conservative party from a political fund. Although that may raise laughter from Labour Members, it is a theoretical possibility, which anyone would be wise to consider, given the state of political flux in Britain today, particularly—although not necessarily—members of the Conservative party and some of the political configurations emerging today. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that matter.
I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly and unreservedly. I welcome it for a variety of reasons, not least because it is a simple and direct piece of legislation that we can all understand. This is a complex subject, and legislation has been put before the House on previous occasions that was not so simple to understand. I welcome the measure for its simplicity. That will be part of its strength. It goes to the heart of the matter, to the relationship between trade unionists and their leaders, and between trade unions and the public. The Bill will leave much to the judges to interpret. I have always thought that that is generally right and good, and that it is wrong and unwise to try to get everything right in the legislation, and to anticipate every difficulty.
I am especially keen to welcome the Bill because in recent years trade union leaders appearing on television or writing in the newspapers have given examples of double-think, and have too often lost the confidence of the public. They have given us the impression of trying to fool all of the people all of the time. I believe that it is necessary — I hope that the Bill will achieve this — to restore confidence among trade unionists in their leadership, and among the public in trade unionists. There has been a tendency in recent years for members of the public who disagree with a trade union leader, and would like to have an honourable disagreement with him, to recognise that that is no longer possible. They sometimes feel strongly that the organised leadership of the trade union movement is jumped up, and is not a product of the will of the trade


union membership. I hope that the legislation will improve the trade union movement and make it possible for it to win the hearts and minds not just of those within the movement, but of those outside as well.
There are some imperfections in the Bill which can be criticised. It has been said that a fundamental imperfection in the Bill is that it protects, or leaves protected, unofficial strikes, but prevents offical strikes that were not called with the support of a ballot, and leaves them unprotected.
If we look at parts I and II of the Bill in conjunction it can be seen that if trade union members are conscious that they have been invited to go on unofficial strike when they might have been invited to go on official strike, after a ballot, and if they feel that they have have been misled or deceived by the leadership of their union, they will have the opportunity to consider that matter on a future date at the elections for the executive committee. That strengthens the democratic process in the trade union movement. The fears that have been expressed are not well founded.
The hon. Member for Truro said that the Bill does nothing for the "them and us" syndrome in the trade union movement. I respectfully disagree with him. The election of the executive committee will do a lot to improve the likely candidates. When the election takes place, the candidates who put themselves forward for election will be judged on their past conduct, such as whether they have sought ballots from the trade union members and had the support of the membership on those occasions. That will do much to help to solve the problems to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention.
It is absolute nonsense for people to say that the Government cannot legislate to make trade unions more answerable. The National Farmers Union was cited by the right hon. and learned Member for Morklands, East (Mr. Smith) as being dear to Tory hearts. He said that it was not covered in such provisions. The argument that legislation cannot be made in respect of the trade union movement does not stand up to examination. I was astonished to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman cite the example of companies. I would have thought that that reinforced the case for legislating for trade unions. Companies have great privileges. They have the privilege not to pay debts when they go bankrupt. As a result they are brought within the legal system to ensure that they do not abuse that privilege with impunity in any way that they choose. That is the reason for legislation in respect of limited companies. It is precisely because of the great privileges that trade union members enjoy that legislation is appropriate. That is so clear that it is difficult to believe how people can argue otherwise, unless they are pursuing an exercise in double-think.
There is also the vexed question of payments by public companies to political parties and the analogies that are drawn in the legislation. The position of shareholders is cited. However, is it not as clear as clear can be that a shareholder is in a totally different position? A shareholder does not have to invest in any company that acts in ways of which he does not approve. He can take his money away. He is in no way bound to put his money into that company. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have never seen evidence that shareholders are clamouring for companies' payments to political parties to be subject to political control. Glaxo is a well-known company in my constituency. No one came to me during the general election to say that he thought that its actions were

outrageous. The shareholder invests his money because he seeks a good rate of return in a prosperous company. He does not do it for other reasons. If he has political views that conflict with what the company does, he can take his money away and put it elsewhere.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: How can the hon. Gentleman apply that argument to workers who have money in pension funds and whose money is invested for them by the pension funds? How does his argument apply to them and to other such institutional investors?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I may be right in what I said, he does not enhance his case when he extends it in a more complex way to support his argument. I appreciate that some difficulties may exist and that on occasion people must be involved indirectly with activities of which they may not approve.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) suggested that when a person buys sugar he does not know whether he is giving money to a political party of whose activities he disapproves. We must not be so remote. The relationship between the shareholder and the company must be proximate to support such a case. If we were in some way to bring such matters into the legislative framework, where would matters end? How would we deal with those companies that trade with South Africa? Some people may disapprove of trading with the Arabs or the Israelis. How would we deal with those companies that have such business contacts? Such matters are far too fanciful to pursue.
In conclusion, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on laying the foundation stone of this important legislation, even though he may not have been the sole architect.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: The debate has revealed a lack of knowledge on the part of Conservative hon. Members about trade unions and their activities. I am proud to speak as the vice-president of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. I often think that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have as much knowledge of trade union affairs as someone living in Saudi Arabia would have of snow shifting. The Conservative party is the remarkable body that brought to Britain, when introducing industrial relations legislation in the 1970s, such pantomine characters as the Official Solicitor, the Tipstaff and all the other unusual people who back up the establishment and get them out of the mess that the legislation creates. Perhaps we shall be seeing those people again.
I am not surprised about the remarks that have come from Conservative hon. Members. However, I was surprised by what was said by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). He began to chastise the Conservative party by criticising the unfairness and the one-sidedness of the Bill, and saying that it should be more even-handed. He concluded by saying that he would be voting for the Bill. It is worth noting that trade unions will know who their friends are. Such a fact should be declared publicly.
Perhaps the trade unions in Truro should know what their Member of Parliament thinks about them. I was amazed when, having spoken against the Bill, he said that he would be voting in favour of it. I presume that the Liberal party will also vote for the Bill. The idea that the


Bill has anything to do with trade union democracy is a fallacy. The Bill shows the Conservative party's hostility towards the trade unions and trade unionists, and its political spite towards the Labour party.
I wish to refer to some of the difficulties that the Bill will cause to trade unions. It refers to the fact that voting must be secret, must be by the marking of a ballot paper, and must take place at a conventient time and place to all those members who are entitled to vote. Furthermore, every trade union member must have an equal and unrestricted right to vote. The Bill places upon the unions a statutory duty to observe such principles. Enforcement of the provisions in the Bill can be made by means of an application to the courts. It is important to note the consequences of non-compliance with such orders. What will happen if a union is fined and refuses to pay? Would we return to the time when the sequestration of funds was a method of punishment and a charade of the 1970s? I do not think that Conservative Members understand the effect of the blanket demand to which all unions will be required to conform. That is wrong. Unions do not conform to such patterns. They are highly democratic bodies. Each union, at its annual or biennial conference, determines its structure. The unions have a chance, during the year in which they can revise their rules, to change them. Each union branch sends a delegate to participate in the discussions. That is what democracy is all about. That is the reason why we have such a varied pattern of democratic institutions and democracy within the trade unions.
The TUC has also encouraged unions to deal with voluntary reform. Where is the evidence — the Government have presented none—to show that trade union members regard the present system as undemocratic or unsatisfactory? No such evidence has been put forward. The Donovan commission, which examined trade unions in great depth in 1969, found no evidence to justify a change in procedures. I do not believe that there has been any demand since that time. I believe that the proposals in the Bill are contrary to the provisions of article 3 of the International Labour Organisation convention No. 87, which states:
Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and to formulate their programmes.
The article continues:
The public authorities shall refain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
Despite such provision, the Government carry on.
There is no parallel in other Western countries for what the Government are attempting to introduce in the Bill. Such countries do not have laws that control the internal democracy of unions. When we examine laws in France, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United States or Sweden, not one of those countries regulates the unions in the way put forward in the Bill. Countries that attempt to regulate unions in such a way are usually Right-wing, repressive and often military dictatorships. Countries such as Brazil or Guatemala, which behave in a repressive manner, try to regulate their unions. I note that the Minister shakes his head.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Can the hon. Gentleman

point to a single occasion on which the Brazilian Government have encourage trade unions to be more democratic? The Brazilian Government encourage their trade unions to be less democratic.

Mr. Hoyle: The Minister makes my point for me.—[Laughter.] It is all very well for the Minister to laugh. We all know that he has other roles in which he enjoys himself. I am dealing with a serious matter. The Minister is right to say that in countries where legislation of the type before the House exists the trade unions are shackled. The fact is that the Government wish to introduce such legislation in a democratic society. Will the Government think about that?

Mr. Iain Mills: The Labour Government's 1969 White Paper "In Place of Strife" provided that the Secretary of State should have discretionary power to require a trade union to hold a strike ballot if there was a serious threat to the economy or the public interest. How does that tally with what the hon. Gentleman has just said?

Mr. Hoyle: Wiser counsels prevailed in the Labour party and those proposals were dropped. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), who later became Prime Minister, pointed out to the then Labour Government that the proposals were unworkable and that far from resulting in fewer industrial disputes they would probably lead to more disputes. I thank the hon. Member for Meridan (Mr. Mills) for making that point for me.
The Government constantly emphasise secret ballots. That sounds very democratic, but there are problems. Postal votes can be extremely expensive and unions do not have unlimited funds. We are told that the Government are prepared to make funds available. It is strange that a Government who do not believe in public expenditure can find funds for that. They are busy cutting essential expenditure on services such as home helps and attacking the Health Service, yet they can find money to do something absolutely unnecessary for institutions that are already highly democratic and responsive to their members' needs.
There are other difficulties that the Government have not even begun to consider. They say that all trade union members must have equal access to ballot papers and to the right to vote, whether at a branch meeting or by post. Union membership constantly changes. It will be almost impossible to ensure that there is an up-to-date record at the time of the ballot. Yet if just one member objects the union's whole electoral system will come to a standstill. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but that would be the result. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that.
The Government are demanding of trade unions more than is required for a general election. The regulations under the Bill will be more stringent than the Representation of the People Act. Under that Act the register is closed well before the election. Under the Bill, unions are expected to keep their membership record up to date until the very moment of the ballot. That will be almost impossible.
The Bill is heavy-handed and one-sided. If procedures of this kind are to work, there must be facilities for trade unions at the workplace. Thanks to the Government, however, restrictions are constantly being placed on trade union activities in factories. Shop stewards find it


increasingly difficult to get time off. It would be far more sensible to make it compulsory for employers to allow the ballots to take place during working hours. That might give more strength to the Government's arguments about democracy.
Some unions have postal ballots. Postal ballots may be democratic. Equally, they may be undemocratic, because they divorce people from the workplace. A postal ballot tends to isolate union members because they do not attend a branch meeting at which there is discussion of the merits of the candidates. In a postal ballot they often have to vote blind. That cannot be democratic. It deprives members of full and frank discussion at branch meetings, and people who might otherwise come forward to strengthen the trade union movement see no reason to do so.
The Government's attitude to trade union democracy contrasts strongly with their attitude to industrial democracy generally. They do not want to give workers any rights in that respect. The Conservative party itself is highly undemocratic. The Government should spend their time reforming that. The chairperson of the Conservative party is appointed by the Prime Minister. That is most curious, although it may be the only way in which such a remarkable choice could have been made. Perhaps the Minister of State, as the current choice, would care to defend the method of selection. The Conservative annual conference is not a policy-making body. Resolutions may not even come up for consideration. It is similar to the CBI. Where is the democracy in that? Even the annual accounts are not published because people may realise the source of the funds, although we all know that the Conservatives will not bite the hand that feeds them.
Strike ballots must take place if unions are to retain their immunity. Under section 15 of the 1982 Act a trade union can be sued under its own name if unlawful industrial action by its members is authorised by a responsible person. The definition of a responsible person is very wide. It could be a member of the national executive, the president or general secretary, an employed official or even a committee to which the official reports. Again, members must be given an equal right to vote, and here, too, the provisions are more restrictive than the Representation of the People Act under which the Government were elected. Why should that be so, if the Bill is not an attack on trade unions?
The Bill will do nothing to improve industrial relations. It will prolong industrial disputes and encourage unofficial strikes. The Conservatives have always condemned wildcat strikes, having no real interest in industry and no understanding of how such disputes arise. The Bill will encourage such strikes because it imposes rigidity where flexibility is needed. That is a major weakness. Moreover, if it is right to have a ballot before taking strike action it is equally right to have a ballot before calling it off. I hope that the Minister will also apply his mind to that. Organising ballots takes time and prolongs disputes. If it is known that a ballot is likely, there is often no movement on either side because people want to know the result of the ballot. The procedure will thus prolong disputes and encourage more unofficial disputes. It will also encourage any individual who wishes to take legal action against a union.
Others have already dealt with the political levy. The Bill is a crude party political attempt to cripple the Labour party. There is nothing in it to improve industrial relations. If the Government wish to improve democracy, they

should direct their activities towards multinational companies and try to control them in the interests;if the people of this country. Alternatively, they might turn their attention to another undemocratic body — the Conservative party—and try to reform that. One thing is certain. The Bill will be highly unpopular and it will do nothing to improve industrial relations. It will merely hasten the return of a Labour Govenment, whose first action will be to repeal this legislation. That will be far better for this country and for the people of this country.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) who, from his position as a vice-president of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs lectured us on freedom and democracy in the trade union movement and contrasted that with the lack of democracy in the Conservative party. After I became a Member of Parliament I was a member of ASTMS for six months at the beginning of either 1977 or 1978. After six months, because I had asked Mr. Clive Jenkins some questions which he found awkward and embarrassing, I was thrown out of the union. My union card was withdrawn; I was given no right of appeal; I was told by lawyers that I could appeal only if I could show that I had suffered serious financial loss. I am glad to say that was not the case. So much for democracy in ASTMS. I have always found it striking that ASTMS—

Mr. Hoyle: rose—

Mr. Renton: I want to make a few more points about ASTMS and then I will be delighted to give the hon. Gentleman a chance to comment.
In ASTMS some 68 per cent. of the members have contracted out of the political levy. Yet there is still a political fund that goes to the Labour party. When a resolution was recently brought forward at an ASTMS conference to reconsider these arrangements, there was a large "P" against it on the conference paper which meant that only those who paid the political levy and therefore supported the Labour party could vote on it. Not surprisingly, the resolution was thrown out. So much for democracy in ASTMS.
In regard to funds, I seem to remember that not long ago the certification officer ruled that ASTMS had incorrectly paid £69,000 out of its general fund to help build the new Labour party headquarters in Walworth Road. The certification officer ruled that this money should properly be paid out of the political fund. Unfortunately, according to his 1981 report, the ASTMS political fund had less than £10,000 in it; therefore, the money could not be paid and the fund is bankrupt. I will refer to that further later in my speech. Does the hon. Member for Warrington, North wish to say anything at this stage?

Mr. Hoyle: Yes. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and I both know that he was never qualified to be a member of ASTMS. In view of his background in Sussex I fail to see how he could be a member. He should disclose that he is prominent in Tory trade unionism. Why has he not declared his interest? He is the strangest trade unionist I have ever seen.

Mr. Renton: On the point of my qualifications, perhaps my difficulty in ASTMS was that I had two


membership cards, not one; I had one from the branch secretary and one from the area secretary who was presumably so pleased to have me as a member that he wanted to confirm the act. No reason was given for throwing me out. I was just told six months later that my application for membership post facto had not been approved. I am delighted that on the suggestion of a Labour Member I then joined the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff where I have been happy ever since.

Mr. Hoyle: rose—

Mr. Renton: No, I will not give way to the hon. Member again.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) on bringing forward the Bill. As he will agree, the ideas in it have been gestating for some time. The original ideas about requiring more ballots in the trade union movement were conceived when our right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) was Secretary of State for Employment. There was a long pregnancy when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was in that important position. I am delighted that the proposals now see the light of day with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater as midwife.
I should also like to congratulate my friends in the Conservative Trade Unionists, whose president I have been for more than three years and who, as Ministers will know, have regularly suggested that it was time to return control of the trade union movement to the ordinary trade unionist. There was no better way to do this than by having a greater requirement for secret ballots, particularly for the national executive. In this context I should like to mention the past chairman of CTU, Geoff Campbell, and the present chairperson, Joy Bushby, both of whom have worked very hard on the issue. In some ways the Bill is a monument to their work.

Mr. John Evans: If the hon. Gentleman believes that we are returning the control of trade unions to the members, will he tell the House why the Tory Government have not insisted that all full-time paid officials of trade unions should be elected?

Mr. Renton: With all respect to the hon. Member, that is a Committee point. I do not expect to be on the Committee but I am sure that the matter will be pursued in detail during the course of the Bill.
The block vote is a monstrous arrangement. It is realised more and more that the Bill will start the process of doing away with the block vote system.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Renton: I hope the hon. Member catches the eye of Mr. Speaker later; I want to get on with my speech.
I have always had greater doubts about mandatory secret ballots before strikes. As my right hon. Friend will know from his industrial experience, quick shop floor negotiations between the works manager or foreman and shop stewards can stop many strikes before they get under way. The measures in the Bill may give more frequency to unofficial strikes but I counterpoise against that the knowledge that they prevent the British Leyland type of strike meeting held on a football ground with thousands

present all crammed together, some intimidation, many people unable to see the platform, and then a call from the shop stewards for a show of hands and a shout of, "That's it, lads, all out." That type of procedure is unacceptable. It is to get away from it that there must be a movement towards proper balloting procedures.
I welcome the Bill. It is a general Bill with general rules. No doubt in Committee the precise form of ballots and details about strike ballots will be properly ironed out. Throughout 1982 I was chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench employment committee. We asked many trade union leaders to talk to us; many came but they would never discuss the proposals in the Green Paper which has been referred to. They dismissed it with the comment that it was undemocratic of the Government to interfere. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who made an excellent speech, I regard it as undemocratic not to have regular ballots for key positions. It is also undemocratic that Arthur Scargill is in office until the next century without a further ballot and that Clive Jenkins leads ASTMS without, so far as I know, ever having had to fight an election at all.

Mr. Hoyle: rose—

Mr. Renton: No, I have given way to the hon. Member once and I will not give way to him again.
We heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that Labour will repeal the legislation in five years' time if they get back to government, which is unlikely, and therefore many trade union leaders will take the attitude that they will have nothing to do with discussions with the Government. That attitude would be greatly mistaken. The majority of trade unionists did not support Labour in June. The fact remains that we won as many trade union votes in June as any other party. Moreover, most trade unionists support our view that more ballots are necessary. The absence of a crowd on the Opposition Benches supports that view.
It is incumbent upon leaders of the trade union movement to talk with Ministers and members of the Standing Committee to ensure that the ballot proposals are as workable, fair and effective as possible. They should then ensure—once provision for ballots is on the statute book — that, with the help of about £14 million of training grant which they receive from the Government, they train the best available people to stand for election to their national executives. That is how the unions will win back the respect of the work force and the country.
The Bill fits the mood of the country, but if the Labour party and some trade union leaders such as Terry Duffy—who was reported in The Times at the end of last week as saying that the Bill will set the trade union movement back a century — continue to hold such a different view, they will suffer the fate of the dinosaur which became extinct because its body became far too large for its brain.
I have complimented my right hon. Friend on the Bill and I should now like to mention two flaws. The first, in part I, is the reliance on ordinary courts for legal action by ordinary trade union members. Ordinary courts are far too expensive.
The second flaw, in part II, is the reliance on the certification officer. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East made much of the lack of complaints to the certification officer about misuse of funds in the


trade union movement. He completely failed to mention the fact that complaints go to the certification officer only when they relate to unions that have political funds. That was a surprising omission by someone as learned and knowledgeable as the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
The certification officer has no jurisdiction whatever over a union that has only a general fund. That is a great limitation on the certification officer's power. It follows, therefore, that there are fewer complaints. The National and Local Government Officers Association provides a recent example of such a case. It has no political fund—one was rejected by its membership not long ago by an 8:1 majority. Nevertheless, during this spring, NALGO embarked on a £1 million campaign entitled, "Put people first." Through advertisements, hot air balloons and T-shirts, NALGO advertised Labour party propaganda without mentioning the party by name. It was a gross waste of money and merely created employment in the printing industry. When members of NALGO complained to the certification officer about that misuse of union funds, they were told that the certification officer had no authority because NALGO did not have a political fund.
I should now like to return to the case of Mr. Loudon Parkin, who made a complaint about ASTMS spending £69,000 on the new Labour party headquarters. The certification officer found for Mr. Loudon Parkin. ASTMS then appealed to the employment appeals tribunal, which also found for Mr. Parkin. However, ASTMS is now taking the matter to the Court of Appeal and using union funds to do so. It is obvious that no such funds are available to Mr. Loudon Parkin. The present system is clearly inequitable. The Committee should increase the powers of the certification officer to cover the use of all union funds and to ensure that the certification officer is given specific and enforceable sanctions.
There is no point in giving trade union members new rights through this important Bill if they cannot afford to exercise them when the procedures laid down by law are not followed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will think seriously about strengthening the Bill in that respect.
I appreciate that the political levy worries trade union leaders most because it touches where it hurts—in their pockets. A 10-year affirmative ballot must be correct. Many people have never voted for a political fund in their union and they should be given the opportunity to do so.
I shall not reiterate the argument why the analogy of company contributions to the Conservative party is false but it is worth mentioning that all contributions from companies to political parties must be recorded in the annual accounts. There is a case for considering in the next Companies Bill a measure which provides that such contributions be approved at the annual general meeting, as is the case with the final dividend. I do not think that such provision would affect the level of contributions but there is a good case for considering it. That is a company law point rather than one which should be dealt with in this Bill.
I hope that the next Companies Bill will do even more to encourage employee share ownership, perhaps by making it easier to produce special classes of partly paid shares for employees. Examples of companies such as United Biscuits (U.K.), J. Sainsbury Ltd. and the National Freight Corporation Company Ltd. show that there is nothing like share ownership to get away from strikes, bad shop stewards and bad management. Introducing a joint

interest in shared prosperity is a much more effective solution to company growth and the welfare of employees than all the strike ballots in the world.
Having campaigned for more than four years for more democracy in the trade union movement, I have no doubt that the Bill goes with the grain of the wood in that movement and that it will be widely welcomed throughout the country.

Mr. Gordon Brown: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak after several Conservative Members, as their speeches reveal that Conservatives are less than united on the Bill.
This is not an ordinary Bill and it is more than a Trade Union Bill. It is basic to the Government's economic strategy because it seems to weaken the trade union movement. Moreover, it raises major constitutional issues which go far beyond the confines of trade union law. It also has grave implications for the established basis of our national political life.
The Bill has already been given a bad press. The Guardian described it as "one sided and unfair." The Financial Times called it
a needless interference in trades union affairs".
It springs from a Green Paper which The Observer described as
a shallow and poorly researched document".
Hon. Members should be in no doubt about the Bill's aims, especially in relation to the political representation of trade unions and their financial discretion in political matters. The Bill tries to terminate by partisan fiat what Sir Winston Churchill at the end of a political life during which he had been more involved than most Conservatives in these matters called
a well established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of the one over the other".
This is the first Bill to regulate the internal government of the trade union movement and it puts the courts at the centre of trade union affairs in a new and worrying way. The Bill offends not only against national practice but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) pointed out, against international practice, particularly the International Labour Organisation convention.
The Bill goes even further than that. It offends against common sense by seeking to control the political representation of the only major interest group whose political representation is already subject to detailed control. For what purposes does it do that? Let me quote another Conservative Minister, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland in the 1920s speaking about a similar but less modest trade union Bill. He said then that the Conservative party should not delude itself about its real intentions. It was not
motivated by a burning indignation for the trade unionist but by the desire to hit the Socialist party through their pockets.
That was the aim then, and it is the aim now.
What are the Government seeking to improve? What must be changed about a state of affairs that was acceptable to Conservative Prime Ministers from Churchill to Heath? On what basis do they seek to reopen the vexed questions of the 1900s and of 1927? What are the undemocratic, inadmissible, unacceptable abuses and manipulations which, according to the Government, so blight the lives of ordinary trade unionists? Where is the evidence to support the crass intrusions in trade union


affairs that the Government deem so necessary? We have not seen it, we have not heard it tonight and I doubt whether we ever shall.
Let us summarise the facts about political funds, which are now under attack. First, unlike companies, trade unions cannot give indiscriminately to political parties. There have been controls on this, as hon. Members know, from the beginning of the century. Secondly, unlike companies, union political funds must be established as separate funds, and the general funds of unions cannot be used for political purposes. Thirdly, unlike companies, union political funds must be administered and policed in accordance with rules laid down by the Government"s certification officer. Fourthly, and equally important, political funds can be abandoned by any union's rule-making conference—without a ballot and at any time.
It is therefore absurd for the Government to imply that the only reason that we have political funds is because there were ballots 70 years ago and that somehow political funds are an accident or anomaly of history. It is open to any union member to press for a ballot on a political fund at any time. It is open to any branch to ask for the political fund to be revoked. It is open to any rule-making conference of a union to abandon its political commitments. It is laid down in the Trade Union Act 1913 that unions can abandon their political funds without even a ballot.
One might ask, as some of my hon. Friends have already, why, when trade unions can decide as a matter of course whether they have political funds or not, the Government are imposing a costly, time-consuming ballot, in which the Government effectively set the question and dictate the timing. Could it not be that they seek an opportunity to divide and disrupt the trade union movement and that they see how a hostile, anti-union press can influence the result?
There is an additional legal safeguard for individual union members in that they can unilaterally opt out of the majority decision made by their unions and can do so at any time. The right is not only established but well protected and policed, to the extent that union members can apply to four courts or tribunals, up to and including the House of Lords. This is a unique provision denied to company shareholders in Britain, and denied to many trade unionists elsewhere. I can think of no comparable circumstances in which the minority is so well protected after the decision has been made by the majority. What they cannot secure from the unions' democatic process they can cure by a legal remedy. A constiutional expert, Dr. Keith Ewing, of Cambridge university has said of these provisions that the detailed and comprehensive nature of individual protection in this country for trade unionists is without parallel in any of the major labour law systems of the world.
However, the Government tell us that there is "widespread disquiet"and that the rights won in the 1913 Act are being "denied". They claim that the original principles are no longer adequately safeguarded. The Secretary of State talked earlier today about abuses. These are serious charges, but where is the evidence? Not in the evidence of the most recent Royal Commission that studied this matter, the Donovan commission, which said clearly that it had "no evidence" that the rights of 1913 were "ineffective" and that the protection was "illusory".

Not in the evidence put to the commission by one of the Secretary of State's predecessors, Mr. Robert Carr, then Conservative employment spokesman. The commission had to conclude that although Mr. Can
thought that he might be able to supply details of specific cases of abuse if given the time, … the expectation was apparently not fulfilled.
There is no evidence either in the statistics given in the Green Paper of January. From its interpretation of the evidence even the certification officer seems to recoil in his annual report. There is no evidence either in the complaints made to the certification officer. Out of 8 million trade unionists capable of taking litigation in this matter, there has been an average of only a score in the past 20 years, most of which, as the certification officer records, have been satisfactorily resolved on a routine basis.
There is no evidence in the hearings of the certification officer. There have been only two hearings in the past 22 months, hearings which would hardly lead us to consider new legislation. A Mr. Double put his case, wanting the best of both worlds. He wanted not to pay the political levy and at the same time to have a say in the selection of Labour candidates. The other case concerned a Miss Elliot, who was not satisfied with the repayment of her political dues in arrears, in advance or in excess. These are the only two hearings that have been published. If the Government were to provide us with evidence of the abuse that they claim exist, we might be able to answer the points that have been raised.
We have before us trumped-up complaints and spurious indignation. If there are abuses and a cancer at the heart of the trade union movement, if the widespread disquiet existed, should not Conservative Members be able to point to union conferences being inundated with at least the occasional composite resolution on the matter? Should we not have seen a vast upsurge in complaints to the certification officer, instead of a decline over this year? Should there not have been a deluge of cases having to go to the House of Lords, or a complete exhaustion of the existing procedures to the point of collapse, and not least because the propaganda of Conservative trade unionists has been geared to achieving that?
The Engineering Employers Federation is strident in its support of the Government's legislation. I shall quote what Dr. McFarlane, director-general of the federation, told the Select Committee looking at this matter only a few months ago. He was asked:
Have you any evidence at all to put before this Committee that people are paying the political levy unwillingly?
He replied:
Not anything that I think you would recognise as evidence, no.
If there is no evidence of abuse, what is the reason for this legislation on political funds and the threat to political levies?
Companies in Britain do not have to establish separate political funds. There is no right of prior approval for political donations and no right of appeal against lost dividends. There is not even a stipulation that company contributions be registered with an independent office. The public is not entitled to know how much in total is paid to the Conservative party or its satellites. The Government might be better employed examining whether company donations conform to the law.
It may not have escaped the notice of Ministers that the League Against Cruel Sports was recently banned from


giving money to the Labour party because it was a company and the purpose of its donation was political and party politics had no part to play in the objects for which that company was founded. If this is true for the League Against Cruel Sports, what of Plessey, Taylor Woodrow, or Consolidated Gold Fields? These companies also have no party political object in their memoranda of association, but over the years they have cumulatively given much more to the Conservative party than individual trade unions have given to the Labour party
Why do we have this one-sided legislation, to rectify abuses of which we are given no evidence, when more serious charges about political funding remain uninvestigated? Could it not be true that the purpose in 1983 is exactly the same as the purpose in 1927 when, as Duff Cooper records in his memoirs — perhaps the Government should read the history of what happened in the 1920s—it was "crudely confessed" that the object of that Conservative Bill—to change the political levy—
was to deplete the funds of the Labour party".
The Prime Minister is already on record as saying that she will be immensely pleased if the trade unions were not part of the Labour party. The Lord Chancellor said as much yesterday in The Guardian. The former Secretary of State for Employment has said that what he wants to achieve is "apolitical trade unionism". The Foreign Secretary has told us that legislation is the first step towards a "depoliticised trades union structure", the aim of which, he says, is to
restore order and balance to the labour market.
Could it he that the Government's economic policy depends on bankrupting the Labour party so that the monetarism they espouse can survive the vagaries of the electoral system? Is this then "Tory democracy", a concept that will for ever be shackled, in the view of Labour Members, by inverted commas?

Mr. Barry Porter: Has it ever entered the hon. Gentleman's mind that the only method of acquiring political funds is not necessarily through trade union donations? Has he ever thought that individual members of the Labour party might go round knocking on doors asking for political funds?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. It is true that in the run up to the campaign for the June election, the then chairman of the Conservative party said that his party would have an income approaching £20 million. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that much of that income came from companies. If Conservative Members could tell us tonight that it did not depend for the majority of its income on the companies in this country, they might have a case.
Trade unions have been democratic organisations since long before this legislation was conceived, and they will be democratic organisations long after the legislation, if passed, is repealed and forgotten. Elections and accountability are the essence and actuality of the trade union movement. If their constitutions are distinctive and diverse, they are also democratic. If their rules are varied, they are also entirely valid. All trade unions have regular votes. The Tory party does not. All trade unions have regular elections at all levels. The Tory party does not. All trade unions have regular policy-making conferences. The Tory party does not.
If the Tory party were merely saying to trade unionists tonight, "We shall give you what we have never given our

own members. We shall offer you what we have never offered ourselves," then the charge against the Conservative party and the Government would he simply one of hypocrisy. However, for the Tory party to use trumped-up charges of illusory abuses as the excuse to stifle the trade union movement is deliberately to create disorder and disruption in a manner that is not simply meddlesome but malevolent. It is curious indeed that the new society that we see across the Floor for the prevention of cruelty to trade unionists, as Conservative Members see it, should be composed almost entirely of bankers, stockbrokers, directors, and business consultants—the very groups who opposed trade unionism in the first place and whose closest experience of the shop floor is probably at Harrods.
If the Government were seriously concerned about the rights of ordinary trade unionists they might have guaranteed trade unionists the minimum legal rights that are commonplace elsewhere in Europe. If they were serious about the rights of trade unionists, they would have implemented the third European Commission directive on industrial democracy, and the fourth, on the disclosure of company information. If they were serious about the principles of which they talk, they would not have deprived 1 million workers of the right to protection against unfair dismissal, they would not have removed from thousands of women the rights to maternity leave, they would not have curtailed the rights to notices of redundancy. If they believed in their own rhetoric as they talk about protecting workers, they would not be considering abandoning the wages councils which offer protection to the lowest paid workers.
The Government's case for the Bill is emotional, not rational; it is partisan, not libertarian. It has little to do with strengthening trade union democracy, and more to do with weakening political democracy. It is based more on a disregard for the democratic provisions of the trade union movement than on any shred of evidence of their abuse. This Bill will be seen in the country for what it is—a political bank raid upon the Labour party, without principle and almost without precedent. It is a bad Bill. It is cynically conceived, contrived in its arguments, consistent only in its hypocrisy, subversive and one-sided in its effects. It deserves to be defeated.

Mr. Iain Mills: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak after the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). His speech contained a number of points that we might consider—perhaps more in humour than in seriousness.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box. He will know of my considerable involvement in the past in this subject, and my joy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in catching your eye tonight.
The only criticism that I could make of the Bill is that its title should perhaps be "The Individual Rights of Trade Union Members Bill", because its contents certainly enshrine a degree of rights that some enlightened unions have already adopted. If there is hypocrisy, I find a huge amount of hypocrisy among Labour Members, while unions such as the AEUW and others—

Mr. Terry Patchett: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. It is the AUEW.

Mr. Mills: I apologise for getting it wrong, and I am glad to have that correction. As I said, the AUEW and others already have just such measures for ballots as the Bill seeks to introduce. It is therefore strange to hear rhetorical words of horror at the moves proposed by the Conservative Government about measures which are already largely accepted by the more enlightened unions and union leaders.
I have spent 18 years in industry, including spending quite a lot of time on the shop floor and at the drawing board. Moreover, I speak after a number of hon. Members on both sides who have industrial experience. I therefore do not take happily to incorrect accusations that the majority of Conservative Members have no industrial experience. Many of us have.
How sad it is to see a trade union movement, in which the principles are wholly believable and utterly right, so degraded by political ideals as to have lost the true essence of the representation of their membership. I am sure that all Conservative Members fully believe in the need for a free trade union movement which truly represents its members. Thank goodness the Bill will take a step towards making that a reality.
In the long debate that we have had this evening it is strange that so far no one has mentioned the customer. I wonder who that poor person is who buys the products and services that all this debate is about. We must surely include the rights of the customer when we consider the Bill. How sad it is, too, that a trade union movement with such honourable origins should not be prepared or able to achieve these measures by voluntary action, particularly as some trade unions have already done so. I shall repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) two years ago, when, as Secretary of State for Employment, he said:
I have no enthusiasm for heavy-handed regulation of the internal affairs of unions. But they are powerful and privileged bodies and there is real concern about the way that they conduct their affairs. It is in the spirit of friendship not confrontation that I say to them—I am ever ready to meet you, to offer my help in hastening the reforms which you feel may be necessary.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State has an equally open door. It is sad that that open door was not entered and that the examples of those emancipated unions was not followed.
Trade unionism must be based on the sound provision of consultation of its members who, in today's demographically and politically different world, will have changed. Trade union members have views supporting political parties right across the spectrum. How, then, can we talk of Opposition money being threatened, when that money has been contributed by people with differing political philosophies? It is not Opposition but members' money. Union members have a right to say where it should go. It should not be 70 years since there was consultation. For those members who were not alive at that time, there has been no consultation.
It is sad to see that once honourable and traditional party, the Labour party, becoming so narrow and doctrinaire in its views, and so desperate for the funds to continue. If Labour Members want to see Tory party fund raising in action, they should come to an excellent affair to be held next Thursday by the Meriden Conservative women's advisory association. We should be happy to teach Opposition Members how to raise money. I am sure that my hon. Friends will give them invitations if they

want to learn how to raise money. Indeed, I see colleagues nodding. We should also be glad if Opposition Members bought raffle tickets.
The Government have taken not just steps, but strides forward in introducing two major pieces of legislation on industrial relations so far. I refer to the Employment Act 1980 and the Employment Act 1982. I and at least one of my colleagues now in the Chamber were happy to spend many happy hours in Committee listening to debates. We therefore welcome the Bill, and I hope that other Bills will follow as we watch the slow organic process of reform of a once traditional institution in order to give it the strength and the true representation of its members that it needs. We wanted to protect the weaker parties against the abuse of power by stronger parties, whether they are companies or trade unions. We provided the greatest legal protection for non-union employees working in a closed shop that there has ever been, and for employers and employees who are caught up in somebody else's industrial dispute.
I only wish that the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) was here. Sadly, he did not mention the decision by the leader of the Labour party to dismiss the White Paper "In Place of Strife" only to find that the proof of the pudding was in the following winter of discontent. That surely must have been the best piece of decision-making ever carried out by a party leader. The 1979 general election was fought in the aftermath of that dreadful period of industrial disputes. Opposition Members will know that the the Labour Government were unable to make any progress in those industrial disputes and that that was a major factor in ensuring a large Conservative majority in the House. Concern is still widespread in the country. Again, in 1983 the Conservative party's manifesto and the literature supplied by almost every Conservative Member, including me, spelt out just what we planned to do. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the country was consulted. Indeed, the enormous number of Conservative Members returned to the House shows that not only traditional Tories, but often trade union members voted for them. In my constituency I have had great support from trade unionists both during the general election and between elections. That is proof that people should not assume that trade union members vote Labour. Many do not. It should not be assumed either that trade union members are happy with the way in which trade unions are often organised.
Trade unions can and do organise industrial action that causes serious economic damage to their members and to the community. Their powers and privileges are wider than those of most other organisations. They are certainly far wider than those of the NFU. Indeed, I am sure that the union would love to have some of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the trade unions. If unions have such privileges and immunities, is it not essential that they should become more democratic, and be more responsive to the views and wishes of their members, as well as to the customers who buy the goods and services that make the industrial and commercial world go round? I repeat for the fourth time that some unions already consult their members. What is wrong with a Bill that suggests that all unions should do just that?
I represent a constituency in the midlands. In 1983, it is inconceivable that a show of hands in the early morning can be considered anything other than archaic. At a time when we talk of robotics and automation, and of a society that is advanced in both micro-technology and the


intellectual appreciation of what it can do, trade unions apparently think that archaic practices that are more suited to the 1930s should be applied.
The Bill may not drag but it will at least shift and push trade unions in quite a reasonable way towards a 1983 style of making decisions. Trade unions are no longer small bodies. They are not party organisations based on voluntary workers. A comparison between a political party such as the Conservative party and a trade union movement that controls the lives of 12 million members, and may well lose them their jobs if they wish to leave the union, cannot be made. Rather, such a comparison could be made only in late night speeches in Committee, when everybody is asleep or in the corridor. It is clear that ordinary people and trade union members believe that some change is needed. In addition, it is fascinating to note that Frank Chapple—a reasonable and well-known trade union leader—was reported in the Daily Mail to have said:
So too was a shameful assault on the democratic rights of every member. Ballots were rigged, votes 'against' illegally disallowed, and outspoken opponents threatened and intimidated".
That scarcely sounds like the same decision-making practices that Opposition Members refer to. Are we talking about the same thing? A public test of opinion in recent polls showed that well over three quarters of those polled supported secret ballots to elect leaders. The figure is similar for strike ballots. Well over half the trade unionists supported this sort of legislation.
Therefore, it is correct to aim to secure those 12 million trade unionists the democratic rights already enjoyed—I repeat for the fifth time—by trade union members of certain unions. The election of their leaders by secret ballot is most welcome.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those opinion polls also show that the vast majority of people oppose any Government interference in imposing constitutions on trade unions? Will not he accept that that is part of the evidence that he should put before the House tonight?

Mr. Mills: I have not seen those polls. However, I shall look at their results if the hon. Gentleman cares to send me a copy of them. It is true that we canvassed in the 1983 general election on manifestos that clearly showed our intention. I only wish that people had expressed some disagreement, but they welcomed our intentions. My problem was that they thought that they did not go far enough, particularly on strikes in essential services. The block vote, votes at dawn and other undemocratic practices are just not on. Voting must be in secret and it must be by ballot paper.
I welcome the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that voting need not be by secret ballot conducted through the post, but could be conducted at the work place. I am sure that many trade unionists will welcome that approach. However, it is clear that the Government money made available in the 1980 Act for the conduct of postal ballots has not been used. Nevertheless, many millions of pounds have been accepted in order to train shop stewards. What a strange anomaly or conundrum of disinterest in the conduct of democratic decision-making by ballot. It was at the cost not of members, but of taxpayers.
Most hon. Members have given the impression that a ballot that goes against a strike will stop it taking place.

However, the ballot has no effect at all on the strike continuing. It only removes immunity against possible civil action. That is not a threat to the fundamental roots of the trade union movement. Most of our constituents would wish to take similar action if they felt aggrieved by the action of another party. Immunity is removed, thus opening up the possibility of a civil action.
It is said that the legislation will greatly increase the number of unofficial strikes, but that is a myth. In reality, there will always be both large strikes and unofficial strikes. Until a union adopts a strike, and until someone takes action against it as they can after the Bill becomes law, the position will be very little different. Much as I want to move into the areas of action that are detrimental to manufacturing or commercial process—for example, go-slow actions or some form of restrictions—it would be impractical to do so.
As my right hon. Friend said in a most significant phrase, any organiser of unofficial action is on his own. He is exposed to those whom he is supposed to represent. They are forgotten in the political argument. Under the legislation, and due to fear of civil action being taken, there is little doubt that unofficial action will he made official. That is an inhibition on any form of unofficial action that it is hoped will later be escalated.
I am not living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Many ballots have been held in controversial conditions—not least by the National Union of Mineworkers, whose president, Mr. Arthur Scargill, must have had a nasty shock at that demonstration of the democratic process. Do the NUM, AUEW or any unions which use balloting procedures suffer from huge numbers of unofficial strikes? That is a myth to oppose the Bill, and no doubt will be good stuff late at night in Committee.

Mr. Peter Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that most unofficial strikes are not led by shop stewards? They tend to be a reaction from the membership of the union. Often, shop stewards are forced into sorting out the trouble. They rarely lead the action. I was a shop steward until the recent general election. It would not have been correct procedure to try to lead unofficial action.

Mr. Mills: There are as many sorts of strikes as products in warehouses. The motives behind strikes are often diverse. I appreciate that the majority of good employers and good trade union officials do their best to inhibit such strikes. But in certain cases the use of a ballot to ensure union immunity must be logical. If members are in favour of action, the union has immunity and there is no problem.
Our main concern must be not the inhibition of unofficial action, which we can never eliminate because it is part of the industrial process, but the inhibition of larger scale strikes. The flexibility of balloting arrangements will be excellent for that purpose. I imagine that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider large strikes in essential services separately.
Many of us are concerned that there should be a change in the immunities for those involved in monopolistic public supply concerns and essential industries. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider another Bill at some stage. It could be called "The Customer's Right to Public Services Bill." So far we have said little about the rights of customers. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consult


widely about the removal of immunity for monopolistic supply concerns so that the customer has the right to challenge some of their decisions.
I am not sure how the mechanics of that could be arranged—[Laughter.] Opposition Members may laugh. I wish that some of them would get back on to their galleys and get out their oars because that is where they belong—centuries ago.

Mr. George Foulkes: That is an "Upstairs, Downstairs" mentality.

Mr. Mills: I have become so excited by Opposition interruptions that I have not yet reached my final point on political funds. I must be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak. I said at the beginning of my short contribution that there are no Labour party funds. They are trade union members' funds being given to the Labour party. Opposition Members have reached the conclusion that should there be a ballot to confirm political funds, they would not be confirmed. Not one of them has argued that the rightness of the fund would be supported.
To compare trade unions with companies is a spurious argument. If trade unions were to take on some of the obligations of company directors, and be bound by company laws and liabilities—which include criminal penalties for certain acts—they could then argue that comparison. But, as my hon. Friends have said, those investing in companies have the right to dismiss directors, and do not lose their jobs for doing so.
In recent years no Government have had so clear a mandate from the electors as this Government. Opposition Members should reflect on the fact that less than 40 per cent. of trade unionists voted for the Labour party. That is proof enough for me and I shall support the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Of the last seven Back-Bench speeches, none has lasted for less than 18 minutes. In view of Mr. Speaker's statement yesterday, the House should remember that that means that fewer Back Benchers will be called than are anxious to speak.

Mr. Tony Blair: I wish to confine my remarks mainly to part II of the Bill, which deals with secret ballots before strikes. However, before doing so I wish to make two brief observations about parts I and III of the Bill. The extraordinary proposition advanced by part I is that it is the proper role of Government to interfere in the due process of a voluntary organisation and not simply to tell unions that they should hold elections, but to tell them when, how, where and in what manner. It is an extraordinary proposition, because the issue in the debate on part I of the Bill is not whether elections are good or bad, but whether it is right for the state to intervene and dictate to trade unions how they should conduct their affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned the ILO convention. That convention, which the Government have ratified, states that trade unions must look after their own rules. It is thought unconscionable and wrong for Governments to tell trade unions how to conduct their affairs.
Part III elevates hypocrisy to an art form. Not only is there an overt and blatant political bias—which means

that no restrictions are placed on company contributions to the Conservative party, while trade unions are forced to go through an elaborate ballot on the political levy—the proposals are put forward under the guise of updating the definition of what comes within political activity, subject to the political fund. In fact, they make a crucial change in that definition.
The 1913 Act says, in essence, that if there is a campaign for a certain party candidate or political party, that activity falls within the activities regulated by the political fund. Clause 14 makes an important change to that. It provides that not only should a campaign positively in favour of a party or candidate fall within the definition of political funding, but a campaign against a political party or candidate should also fall within it.
The importance of that point can be illustrated by the current campaign of NALGO and the National Health Service unions against Government expenditure cuts. While it could be said that those campaigns are not in favour of the Labour party, it could equally be argued that they are against the Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said that the NALGO campaign is one of the things that the Bill is designed to outlaw. Will the Minister say whether that is the case? If it is, is not the Bill an attempt to impose backdoor censorship upon those who seek to criticise the Government?
Part II of the Bill gives the lie to the fundamental deceit on which this Bill is founded. I shall read, from the Green Paper, the stated purpose of part II of the Bill. It says:
In principle the case for holding a secret ballot before a strike is called is as strong as the case for secret ballots for trade union elections. Indeed the argument is fundamentally the same in both cases. If trade unions are to serve and fairly represent the interests of their members, they should ensure that any important decisions are supported by the majority of the members voting in a secret ballot.
It has also been said by the Secretary of State that the purpose of part II of the Bill is to allow union members rights over their union. That is the stated purpose of the Bill but its actual purpose is different. The actual purpose of the Bill is to alter the industrial balance of power and to tilt it definitely and calculatedly in favour of the employer. I shall make four points to support my argument.
First, if the stated purpose of the Bill was correct, one would expect to find in part II rights being given to union members against the trade union. In fact, not a single right is given to a trade union member in part II of the Bill. Indeed, the entire mechanism of part II of the Bill is set out in clause 6. That mechanism does not give union members rights but rather withdraws immunity from trade unions or union members acting in furtherance of a trade dispute and allows employers a readier access to the courts for actions in tort. That gives the lie to the stated purpose of the Bill.
Secondly, on the actual provisions in clause 7 for the ballot that must be conducted if the immunity of the trade union is to be preserved, one would expect, if the purpose of the Bill was to give union members the right to have their union leadership in tune with their aspirations, that the question on the ballot paper would be, "Are you in favour of strike action or are you against strike action?" That would be the logical question, but it is not so. According to clause 7(4)(a), the question on the ballot paper must ask whether the trade unionist wishes to take part in a strike


involving him in a breach of his contract of employment.
Can hon. Members imagine such a question on the ballot paper? The ordinary trade unionist is not asked whether he is in favour of strike action but whether he is a contract breaker. If that is not a rigged ballot question, it is hard to think of one.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman said that the question does not ask whether the member wants to take part in a strike. The question in clause 7 is whether he is prepared
to take part … in a strike involving him in a breach of his contract of employment.
It does ask him whether he is prepared to take part in that strike. The hon. Gentleman said that it did not.

Mr. Blair: If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene he should at least have the courtesy to read his Bill properly.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman got it wrong.

Mr. Blair: Clause 7(4) makes it clear that the voter must say:
by answering "Yes" or "No", whether he is prepared to take part … in a strike involving him in a breach of his contract of employment.
In Clause 7(4)(b) the words are used:
but involving him in a breach of his contract of employment or interference with its performance.
Therefore, the voting paper will ask whether the member is a contract breaker.

Mr. Howard: If the strike would involve a breach of contract, why should that be kept secret in the ballot? Why should that not be drawn to the attention of the potential striker?

Mr. Blair: There is always a danger when hon. Members intervene in that way. The hon. Gentleman has in effect said that he disagrees with the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman is asking whether it is not right that the member should be asked whether the strike involves a breach of the contract of employment. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will say who is right—the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) or the Secretary of State. It is clear that they disagree.
I come now to a third reason that gives the lie to the proposals in the Bill. If the purpose of the Bill was to make union leaders true to the aspirations of their members, one would expect there to be an incentive to ballot the members before industrial action is taken, but there could be no conceivable reason—if the stated purpose of the Bill is correct—why they should not also be balloted on whether the strike should continue. If the wishes of union members is the paramount consideration, why should their wishes be taken into account when considering whether to take strike action but not when deciding whether to continue strike action?
My fourth point about the clear purpose of the Bill concerns the administrative obstacles that the Government seek to place in the way of effective trade union action. Part II of the Bill applies not only to major official strikes but to any strike at all. If any stike is called there must, before official strike action is taken, be a ballot that is conducted in a manner fair to and convenient for the members. In many cases a union will be required to take urgent, prompt and effective action. The essence of the union action will be swiftness. It will need to take action immediately. The Bill effectively prevents the union from doing so. If the true purpose of the Bill was to ascertain the views of the members, one would expect, where a

union took industrial action without a ballot but, following the industrial action, balloted its members, and found them in favour, that the Bill would say that union members could ratify that industrial action. No such provision exists. A union can take action, could have it overwhelmingly ratified by its membership and still lose the immunity and be liable for up to £250,000 for each act.
The true purpose of the Bill is to shift the balance of industrial power. If the Opposition were in government and introduced legislation which required that every time a board of directors made a major decision it would have to ballot its shareholders, we would be justly criticised on the basis that that would lead to an inefficient and ineffective company. Such criticism would be right. That applies in exactly the same way to trade unions. The whole purpose of having a trade union executive is so that it can take charge of the conduct of the affairs of that trade union. The purpose of the Bill is to render the trade union movement ineffective and inefficient. Once this shroud of deceit is lifted from the Bill, its true nature is clear. It is a shabby, partisan stratagem designed to assist the Conservative party and employers in industry. It has nothing to do with democracy—it has everything to do with interfering with the rights of British trade unionists to organise freely in the association of their own choice.
It is a disgrace that we should be debating today the taking away of fundamental freedoms for which British trade unionists have fought for a long time. Having fought long and hard for them, they will not give them up lightly. We shall oppose the Bill, which is a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement for partisan reasons.

8 pm

Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) asked what evidence there was of a demand for the Bill. Every recent opinion poll has shown that not only most people but most trade unionists want secret ballots for the election of union executives, that they want ballots before strike action is taken and that they want the freedom to decide whether to pay into a political fund.
Many regard the Bill as the first real attempt for a long time to give trade union power back to the people to whom it properly belongs—the trade union members—and for that not only I but millions of trade unionists are grateful to the Secretary of State. Many of them voted for just these proposals in the 1979 election and again in June of this year, and Labour Members might care to consider the possibility — to them the awful possibility — that there might now be more trade unionists on the Government Benches than there are on the Opposition Benches.
I shall concentrate on what I regard as omissions from the Bill, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for doing that. To put the cart before the horse, I deal first with the last item in the Bill, the political levy. I and my many colleagues in the Conservative trade union movement do not seek to deny anyone the right to political funds, but we want those contributions to be through positive, not negative, choice.
Labour Members have commented on the manner in which the Conservative party receives its funds. I have established that 20 per cent. of those funds come from industry and that the other 80 per cent. come from constituency and doorstep collections. Of the 80 per cent.,


a portion comes from small business, but that is perhaps because small business sees its future best under my party and the policies that we provide.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) did not answer me when I asked in an intervention whether the Labour party was so bereft of attraction that it could draw funds in only through coercion. Labour Members have said throughout the debate that they regard this as a raid on Labour party funds. I find that arrogant beyond belief because there is no reason to suppose that trade unionists, of whom I am one, wish to contribute only to Labour party funds. It is possible, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) suggested, that there are a few who might like to contribute to Conservative party funds, and I have no doubt that down in St. Austell there are a few who might even contribute to Liberal party funds as well. Thus, this cannot by any means be regarded as a raid on Labour party funds.
If the trade union movement wishes to establish a political fund, it should allow that fund to be voted on, and the Bill as drafted does not give members a positive choice. Unless the trade union movement is prepared to say by the end of the year, without qualification, that any member of any union shall have the right to opt into and not out of a political levy, that right should become part of the Bill, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take a similar view.
In the area of disputes, we have sought the insertion of a clause giving every employee in his or her contract of employment a procedure for arbitration that is legally binding on employer and employee alike. There must be a legislative balance and that legislation must place responsibility on both parties to a dispute. That clause is also missing from the Bill.
In clause 6 provision is made for the pre-strike ballot. Where a union refuses to hold such a ballot or chooses to ballot only key workers in a small section that can still bring an industry to a standstill, no provision is given to the ordinary union member to demand, as of right, a ballot of the full membership affected. I believe that right to be essential to democracy in the trade union movement. That right is also missing from the Bill.
Perhaps the most important part of the Bill is the right to ballot for the election of a union's governing body. For the first time, my right hon. Friend has sought to enshrine in law the right that in national elections we take for granted—one man, one vote on a piece of paper and in private. Trade union members will congratulate my right hon. Friend on that provision.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me which way he cast his vote in the recent election for the chairman of the Conservative party?

Mr. Gale: The internal elections of the Conservative party have been discussed a great deal—

Mr. Foulkes: What is the answer?

Mr. Gale: As hon. Members who have been present all afternoon know, the internal machinery of the Conservative party has been discussed so frequently today that the matter is becoming a chestnut. No doubt the Minister of State will answer the question, because he is the most affected.
What voting power will the Bill give the union member to elect his local representative, his shop steward, in the same way as it outlines the power for him to elect his national governing body? The answer appears to be, none. That too is an omission from the Bill. The matter was raised by Labour Members earlier. I am grateful to them for doing so and I support that point of view. There is a loophole here that will allow similar shop floor elections that have taken place in the past and I hope that that matter will be attended to in Committee.
Above all, what voting power will the Bill give to the union member regularly to elect the speaking but not voting member of his executive, the general secretary? The answer is, none. To cite what is becoming the most infamous of cases to illustrate the point, I mention the Film Artists' Association, and I will not say anything in the House, with its protection, that I would not say outside. The general secretary of the FAA should, according to the rules of that association, have retired four years ago. In spite of a High Court provision, he is still in office. The facts of the case are public knowledge and its conduct makes a mockery of the concept of union democracy. But the Bill would do nothing to curb the power wealded undemocratically by Sean Brannigan—elected years ago and now out of time—and others, often unelected, like him.
Clause 2(2) denies the right to vote to union members who are not in employment. In the unions of which I am a member — the National Union of Journalists, the Association of Cinematograph and Television Technicians, of which Alan Sapper is a member, and British Equity—there are many full-time members who are not in full-time employment. [Interruption.] I should like to think that Opposition Members agree with me at least on this. In the election of their union's executive, it is wrong that those who are between jobs should be disfranchised, and in that respect I believe the Bill to be wrong.
Those of us who have sought for a long time the rights that the Bill will extend take great heart from it. It will do much to give the trade union member the power that properly belongs to him. Some years ago, I said that I believed that it was possible to bring about this change without legislation and within a union's existing rule book. Sadly, time has taught me that I was wrong. I believe that the trade union leadership has failed to respond to a growing call for change, has failed its members and has too often neither listened to them nor represented them. If it had, the Bill would not be before the House.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I and some of my colleagues in the Scottish group were able to visit a remarkable Scottish industrialist, Mr. William McCrindle, who left school at 16. In 1964, and with £10 in his pocket, he started to build up an organisation which is now competing with an American firm from Houston, Texas and with European companies for North sea contracts. When I asked him what he felt about the industrial relations legislation, he told me that he had an agreement on his shop floor that any skilled or unskilled man was interchangeable and could operate any machine. Industrial relations, because of this procedural agreement, are second to none. At the request of the Scottish Development Agency he has taken over factories which were going to the wall. The agreement is signed by the


Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, the Amalgamated Society of Boilermakers, Shipwrights, Blacksmiths and Structural Workers and the Institute of Engineers and Technicians. Mr. McCrindle makes the valid point that it would suit the Government better if they gave him the types of subsidies that are given to the German and Norwegian contractors by their Governments. He feels that he has been successful in achieving good industrial relations, and that the Government and the law courts cannot provide the same success. The House will not take one man or woman off the dole by passing this legislation. It will do no good for industrial relations.
Each employer whom I have come across has argued that there are far too many independent unions in the Trades Union Congress. It is a pity that there are not a small number of unions in the TUC. Employers are faced with more and more union amalgamations. Forty years ago, the blacksmiths within the boilermakers union did not have their own union. In effect, the boilermakers union is an amalgamation of unions from the heavy trades. This union has now amalgamated with what was the General and Municipal Workers Union. The Transport and General Workers Union comprises vehicle builders and various other trades.
Members of smaller unions must have protection when unions amalgamate. If the argument for majority rule is followed, a small union would be afraid to amalgamate with a larger one because it would believe that the people who are conversant with its trade and skills would not win top positions.
Often, a protection agreement covers people who are in amalgamated unions. If the Secretary of State does not protect this aspect, smaller unions will be reluctant to amalgamate with larger ones for fear of being swallowed up. The president of a union normally has voting power. Sometimes unions expect the senior member of the executive to become the president, and so he moves up in position for one year. Great honour is attached to that position. There is no harm in that system. It is used by English local authorities in appointing a mayor. It would be a shame, though, if unions wanted to proceed along those lines. It could be argued that this measure is undemocratic, but is a way of giving some recognition to people who have devoted their lives to, for example, engineering.
This legislation would deny unions the right to appoint such people. The white collar unions represent people who are on very high salaries. Such people are reluctant to leave their jobs to take up office in a trade union. Sometimes, unions must appoint executives because they cannot find people willing to offer themselves for election. A difficulty may arise if the Government insist on this system and the proper talent does not come to jobs that carry much responsibility. Some of these jobs — including general secretary — are equivalent to those held by senior executives in many of the major companies.
Closed shops existed long before legislation making them legal. Many employers liked the idea of a closed shop, because they could negotiate with one union. They could go to the personnel officer or someone responsible for negotiating wages and agreements. Often someone said to management, "You are operating a closed shop." Management would reply, "I am not operating a closed shop. It just happens that everyone in the shop belongs to the associated metalworkers union or the boilermakers union."
Hon. Members should not kid themselves that by passing this legislation we shall abolish closed shops. There will be more unofficial strikes. When I was a trade union official and was told that some of my members were on strike, I literally broke sweat. I knew that my spare time would be devoted to paying out strike pay or persuading unionists to return to work. A trade union officer with a strike on his hands faces a hard slog. He does not see his wife or children, or get home at the weekend if the trade union members are far away. Trade union officers do not want to strike—that is a myth exploited by the Tory party.
A few trade union officers will say that they cannot instruct their members to go on strike. There may be a nod and a wink, and if they want to go on strike that will be their business. An old Glasgow saying is "You can't take the breeks off a Highlander." There is no point in sueing someone who is earning only £50 a week.
Many responsible employers who are faced by a strike will wait it out. Not many strikes last longer than a few days. A responsible employer who has something upstairs will say that he will not cause bother and go before the courts. He knows that he must operate in harmony with his work force.
What will the Secretary of State do about third parties? For example, taxi drivers may say that because of a strike they have not had any hirings by a company. Someone who delivers rolls may say that he will take the matter to court because of the effect of the dispute on his business. The so-called "organisations for freedom" will pick out not a responsible employer, but a weak one. All sorts of problems will arise. Once again, that does not lead to good industrial relations.
Many people talk about the trade union levy as being money that goes directly to the Labour party. A part goes directly to the Labour party; another part goes towards lobbying Parliament, which is a legitimate activity. We should encourage people to lobby their Members of Parliament because we want to know the problems of the outside world. If we do not, we are working here in a vacuum. If people come from Glasgow, which is where I live, they need the train fare and to be paid for two days off work. That money comes from the political levy. If we abolish the political levy there will be arguments such as those taking place in NALGO about what is or is not political.
If trade unions have a political levy, they can correctly say that a certain matter is "political". If a critical pamphlet is published, we in the House of whatever party must be prepared to stand up to that criticism. If we are afraid of a pamphlet we should not be in politics. Trade union secretaries who have access to political funds are entitled to become involved in that type of activity. Doing away with the fund will create difficulties.
I take exception to what the Minister said about a trade union member, either a Tory or a Liberal, who does not want to pay the political levy. That person should be able to contract out of paying it. Most unions make it easy to do so, in spite of what has been said. I do not want to get into that argument, but it is right that people should be allowed to opt out. If I make the decision to pay the political levy, my union should be allowed to have a political fund and I should be able to represent my union actively as a delegate to the Labour party.
The Minister is giving those people who are anti-Labour two bites of the cherry. They will not only withdraw from the political fund, they will deny my union the right to have a political levy.
If one third only of the union members want to continue paying the political levy, the general secretary should have the right to set up a political fund and it would be available for other activities related to the Labour party.
I have been involved since I was 15 with industrial relations as a shop steward, a full-time union officer and a sponsored union Member. If men and women feel that they have a grievance, no one will keep them at work. The Government delude themselves if they think otherwise.

Mr. Michael Howard: I begin by dealing with the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) at the outset of his remarks. He did not want the law to play any part in industrial relations. That is a refrain that we have heard, not so much this afternoon and evening, but on other occasions from Opposition Members and trade union leaders. However, that argument leaves out of account the fact that the law, in particular statute law, which is passed by Parliament, is at the heart of the status of trade unions, because Parliament has conferred upon trade unions the privilege of immunity.
Parliament having conferred that privilege, it must be within Parliament's proper function to review it from time to time and to ensure that the bodies that are entrusted with that privilege are democratic. Let us reflect for a moment upon the nature of the privilege with which we are concerned. It is a unique immunity conferred upon trade unions, which protects them from the consequences of their actions that the common law — to which every other citizen is subject—would visit upon them.
When we consider such an important and far-reaching immunity it seems utterly reasonable that Parliament should consider from time to time whether the leaders of such bodies are democratically elected, that when they seek to exercise those privileges they do so having consulted their members, and that when they wish to devote some part of their members' funds to political purposes, they do so with their members' consent.
The privilege of immunity from the common law lies at the heart of the matter. In that privilege lies the answer to all the false analogies that Opposition Members have sought to draw during the debate. "Why have ballots not been made obligatory for this, that or the other bodies?" The answer is that none of those other bodies have had conferred upon them by Parliament the unique privilege of immunity from the common law that the trade unions have had.
The last thing that I would wish to do is to trepass upon what I know my hon. Friend the Minister will inevitably deal with when he replies, but dare I say it, that immunity provides the distinction between trade unions and the Conservative party. We wish my hon. Friend extremely well in his relatively new office, and although that office undoubtedly confers upon him great status and power, it does not stretch to the immunities which Parliament has conferred upon trade unions.
Many of my hon. Friends have said that the Bill is modest. Nowhere is its modesty more apparent than in part

II which deals with the provision for balloting before official strike action. It could have extended to unofficial strike action, but it does not. It could have provided that immunities would be lost unless the result of the ballot was in favour of strike action, but it does not. It could have made strike action without the consent of the workers, as expressed by ballot, illegal per se, but it does not. All it does is remove the privilege of immunity from the consequences of common law.
I wish to deal with some of the points that have been mentioned by Opposition Members in relation to part II. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) wondered why there was no provision for ballots to take place at the work place. There is already such a provision. It is contained in section 28 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 passed by the Labour Government, which provides for time off to be given by employers for trade union activities at the place of work, and there is the more recent legislation dealing with the provision of the opportunity for balloting at the work place for which the Government were responsible in the previous Parliament.
The hon. Member for Warrington, North tried to draw analogies with other European countries. He referred to Germany, but immunity from the consequences of the ordinary law of Germany is not provided to trade unions in that country. Therefore, it is not surprising that such provisions do not apply there, or at least that they do not apply there yet. In Germany trade unions have, as a matter of course and without being required so to do by law, balloted their members before taking strike action. There are now signs that some German trade unions may be departing from that practice, which caused a leading member of the German Government to say that if departure from the practice continues consideration will have to be given to introducing legislation along the lines of this Bill.
The points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) about clause 7(4) were followed to some extent by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who I am delighted to see back in his place. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point was that it was necessary, if the provisions of clause 7(4) were to be followed, to include on the ballot paper a reference to the fact that the contemplated strike, in relation to which the intention of union member was being ascertained, would involve that member in a breach of his contract of employment. Why should that not be required? Why should it not be drawn to the attention of a member whose opinion was being canvassed about this matter that the strike would involve him in a breach of contract? Why should it be kept a secret? The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that it might frighten the trade union member, because he might, if the question was couched in that way on the ballot paper, obtain an inaccurate impression of the consequences of his joining the action. That is an entirely false suggestion. If that is a serious worry, the provision does not prevent it being made clear on the ballot paper that immunities would apply notwithstanding the fact that the strike was in breach of contract, and that such fears on the part of the union member were groundless.

Mr. Blair: Is it the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of clause 7(4) that the question on the ballot paper must ask the voter whether he is prepared to take part in a strike that involves him in a breach of his contract of employment?

Mr. Howard: That is how it looks to me at present, but the matter can be dealt with in detail in Committee. I made it clear that that was my opinion when I intervened during the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I asked him what was his objection to such a provision and why it should be kept a secret; answer I received none. There is no difficulty with clause 7(4).
I shall not deal now with the first point of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, because in the one reservation that I have about the Bill I might come close to what he said about the rights of members. He asked why there was no need for a ballot to call off strike action, and why it would not be possible to have a ballot after strike action commenced so as to ratify and confirm it respectively. The answers to those questions lie in what I suggest is the key to the Bill—the fact that it is part and parcel of the regulation of the privilege of immunity from the consequences of common law. The immunity would not be affected if strike action were called off, so there is no need to have a ballot for that purpose. As to the hon. Gentleman's latter point, if a trade union embarks upon action that would enable it to claim protection from the common law consequences of what it was doing, it is only right and proper that that should be the result of prior consultation with the union membership and not consultation after the immunity has already been claimed.
My substantial reservation about the measure relates to its failure to protect a category of citizens whom the Government, in their Green Paper, recognised that they had a special duty to safeguard. I refer to the interests of citizens who have been coerced into union membership as a direct result of the spread of closed shops. There is one particular respect in which such citizens are exposed to the risk of manifest injustice which it is a great regret that the Bill does nothing to remedy. I refer to the position of the individual worker who wishes to honour his contract of employment and refuses to take part in industrial action. It remains the position, and will remain the position even if the Bill becomes law, that there could be circumstances in which such a worker could be liable to lose his job with no compensation. His position is to be contrasted with the worker who is dismissed because he joins or wishes to join a trade union. That worker is entitled to elaborate protection under the law and to enhanced compensation under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. I do not quarrel with that, but it highlights the injustice suffered by the worker who is expelled from his union for honouring his contract of employment and who, in a closed shop, may lose his job.
It is right that the trade unions, on whom the great privilege of immunity from the common law is bestowed, should respect the views of the majority of their members in excercising that privilege. The Bill achieves that objective and is to be commended for it, but it is equally right that a body on which such a privilege is conferred should not oppress a minority of its members in the exercise of that privilege. The Government could have used the Bill to remedy that injustice which such a minority might suffer. It is a matter of great regret and disappointment that they have chosen not to do so. It is an

omission which I urge them to remedy with the minimum of delay, though it will certainly not prevent me from supporting the Bill on Second Reading.
The cardinal feature of the Bill is that it provides for democracy to be freely exercised within trade unions and, throughout the debate, Labour Members have found themselves impaled on the horns of an inescapable dilemma. If everything in the trade union movement were hunky dory and if there were full exercise of democratic rights in the choice of their leaders, before engaging in strike action and before devoting funds to political purposes, the Bill would make no difference and all the indignation that we have heard from Labour Members would be a complete sham. But I suspect that they protest too much. I suspect that there are many occasions when the exercise of that democracy is less than perfect and that is what the Bill will remedy.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Since the inception of the Social Democratic party, alliance Members have fought for the reform of balloting on industrial action, for the election of union executives on the basis of one member, one vote, and for the reform of the political levy system as outlined in various policy documents that have been published. It is interesting that some of those proposals have been taken up in the Bill, and therefore we shall support it. Nevertheless, I have many reservations about some of the detailed proposals that the Government have brought before the House.
The Bill's most important defect is that the system for reforming the payment of the political levy is one-sided. It is being pushed through the House by a party with a substantial majority and rightly appears outside the House as a vindictive act against the Labour party. Therefore, it is highly likely that the reform that the Government are seeking to impose through the Bill will not stick. That is unfortunate because if they had done what they previously seemed to favour and which we would like to see—the introduction of a system of contracting in—they would have been reforming the political levy system in a palpably fair way, not to the advantage of any one party in the political spectrum. That is a major reservation.
We also have reservations about the system of balloting for industrial action.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and other hon. Members referred to the incidence of unofficial strikes. I cannot see how the Government can take the Bill through the House in its present form without dealing with the problem of unofficial action. As was shown by Donovan, and by others since then, unofficial action is the predominant problem in industrial relations. The Bill will be damaging if it encourages unofficial action, and does not deal with it. I hope that the Government will consider amendments to overcome the problem.
We should have preferred a trigger mechanism introduced in this part of the Bill for balloting when a percentage of the work force felt that it was desirable and necessary to do so. I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) mention that.
The third major aspect of the Bill deals with the election of trade union leaders. We have adopted in our party constitution a system of one member, one vote. The Secretary of State referred to an early-day motion that some of us tabled in 1975. I was one of the hon. Members


who organised that motion, which many Opposition Members signed. We were fighting for one member, one vote in the trade union movement and also in the party. We have carried on that commitment and we hope that the provisions of one member, one vote will be introduced for elections. That is one of the major reasons why we hope that the measure will go on to the statute book. Some amendments need to be made in Committee, so I shall not deal with them now—

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, many of his right hon. and hon. Friends have been sitting here all evening, and I should like to hear them speak.
We regret that other provisions have not been made in the Bill to make it a balanced package. We have referred to one of those on the Order Paper, in an instruction asking the Committee to consider the method by which company donations to political parties are made.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way. There will be plenty of opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to make his points.
I hope that the Government will make it necessary for shareholders—I was interested to hear Labour Members say that that change is necessary and desirable—to give prior approval to political contributions made by companies. We have also made it clear in our instruction that pension funds and the institutions that are investing funds on behalf of workers in many industries should have their views taken into account and assessed before a vote is taken on political contributions. I hope that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is responsible for company law, will respond to those pleas for changes in the provisions for political contributions from companies, to try to make the proposed reform more even-handed.
Another major reform that should have been introduced at the same time, which is long overdue, is the reform of industrial democracy. If we are to give people more democratic rights in their trade unions it is important that company workers should be given democratic rights to participate in running the enterprises in which they work. It is regrettable that the package has not been made more balanced with the announcement of the introduction of such proposals.
Finally, I believe that our proposal will help to change the whole nature of the debate on industrial relations and trade union affairs. I hope that we can bring into the debate in the House and in the country the reform that we have proposed for removing trade union immunities and replacing them, as in many other countries, with trade union rights. Such rights should be enacted in statutes so that people know where they stand. Trade unions have proposed a series of rights which I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to see enacted, thereby removing the curious position in which trade unions are immune from civil action and are then penalised for being immune. Such a provision would be a long overdue major reform in trade union legislation. Some Labour Members appear to have their heads in the sand and not to realise that social,

economic, political and industrial conditions have changed since trade union legislation was first put on the statute book. They must seek and support reform in the trade union movement if the unions are not to be swept aside by the more vindictive proposals emanating from the Government.

Mr. Richard Holt: The debate began five hours ago. I believe that I am the first hon. Member to be called who has for 25 years earned his living in industrial relations. Much has been said by banisters on both sides of the House, few of whom, I imagine, have had any shop floor experience.
Memories are short. Only five months have passed since the Government were elected with an overwhelming mandate. Opposition Members have asked on what mandate the Government introduce the legislation. It is the mandate of the British people who voted for the Conservate party which will enact legislation to make the trade unions far more democratic and representative than at present, and with their leaders taking notice of what their members say.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman looks like a docker.

Mr. Holt: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is so short-sighted that he cannot see.

Mr. Skinner: I am sorry. I think that the hon. Gentleman must be a stockbroker.

Mr. Holt: Whatever else I may be, I try not to be rude.

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman has done very well so far.

Mr. Skinner: I think that he is a failed actor.

Mr. Holt: Whenever democracy is referred to, certain Opposition hon. Members on the far Back Benches try to interrupt.
I wish to differentiate between unions and national officials who frequently make decisions without any reference to their members. I wish to refer to my own experience in the furniture industry. Postal ballots have taken place in the union in that industry since 1947.
Sir Alfred Tomkins, who was general secretary of the union in 1947, was determined to guard the procedural agreement introduced in that year. So jealous was he of that agreement that he remained in office until he died at the age of 85. I am sure that Sir Alfred Tomkins was known to many Opposition hon. Members. He was succeeded by a general secretary almost as old as he was. No one in the union ever had the right to vote for a new general secretary. During Sir Alfred's tenure, the union membership had no rights by which they could remove him.
Since 1977, the general secretary of the union has been Mr. Benn Rubner. He was elected for life and will remain in office for life until legislation of the type before the House is enacted. If the union members then wish to remove Mr. Rubner they will have the democratic right to do so. If they do not wish to remove him, they will re-elect him to office.

Mr. Skinner: That union sounds just like the House of Lords.

Mr. Holt: I do not know why Labour Members are so frightened of the democratic process. Since the


Conservatives came to office in June, every trade union has known that legislation was on its way. Every trade union leader has had the opportunity to organise some kind of ballot among the members to prove that the Government's proposals are wrong, but every union leader has shied away from that challenge. As a Member of Parliament, I have yet to receive a letter from anyone opposing legislation to reform the trade union movement.

Mr. Pike: Conservative Members constantly claim that the great mass of the public support the Government's proposals. If that is so, why have those decisions not been taken through the existing democratic channels in the trade unions? If the Government are right, such resolutions could easily be passed at branch meetings. Why has that not happened?

Mr. Holt: In my experience, most people are afraid to do that because of the closed shop practice which could deprive them of the right to earn a living. One of the purposes of Parliament is to protect the little person against the big organisation. Too often, trade union leadership is not concerned about individuals and their rights. I hope that that answers the question.
In the furniture industry the union has held postal ballots from the beginning. The present general secretary was elected for life by 13·4 per cent. of the membership. One can draw whatever conclusion one likes from that. One may say that postal ballots are good or bad, but those are the facts. The postal ballots were paid for by the union members, although no doubt they would be happy to take Government funds if they were made available.
Many people feel that the last general election was lost by the Labour party because it needed a chiropodist. No doubt by the time we reach the next general election it will be seeking the views of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on how to deal with foot and mouth disease.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he was never insulting.

Mr. Holt: The Labour party's stance on industrial relations lacked credibility. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to any hon. Member who has a meaningful contribution to make. If hon. Members merely wish to jib and jibe, I shall simply have to raise my voice. I did not wish to do that as I believed that this was a debate between rational people on a rational subject. I had forgotten that the hon. Member for Bolsover had come into the Chamber.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has been spouting about democracy. Does he believe that all this democracy and balloting should extend to the 1,100 Members of the House of Lords? Should not they, too, come up for election?

Mr. Holt: I shall stick to the subject under debate today, but I will gladly debate the House of Lords with the hon. Gentleman on the appropriate occasion.
Money regularly collected from trade union members has been regarded as the right of the Labour party, but it is not. That has now been put to the test. I see nothing wrong in testing opinion so that trade union members can decide for themselves. Throughout the debate, Labour Members have given Pavlovian responses, looking back over their shoulders to the last century and trying to square

the wheel in relation to trade union relations in such a way as to cause Conservative Members to come out in even greater numbers.
It has been suggested that Parliament has no right to interfere in what the trade unions are doing. It has every right to interfere when it also interferes in the activities of companies seeking to produce goods, sell them to customers and put the economy on a decent footing.
When the Labour Government introduced industrial tribunals and the legislation on unfair dismissal, they created an almost monstrous industry. I have been to a tribunal for a dismissal case but the appellant did not turn up. I was there. So were the convener, the shop steward, the foreman and the manager. They were all there to support management. When the appellant did not turn up, the tribunal decided to set another day in case he had got lost on the way or was ill. In fact, the man was a drug addict and we had fired him at the request of the trade union and the convener. They were very glad to see him go out of the factory.
That sort of interference was brought upon us by legislation. I can see nothing wrong in some of the provisions before us, although I have reservations from practical experience about some aspects of the Bill. On part II, I have reservations about people temporarily unemployed.
It has been suggested by Opposition Members that the law should be amended to give shareholders a better say in the allocation of funds to the Conservative party. I am confident that shareholders, if given the opportunity, would vote to give far more money to the Conservative party rather than have it stolen from them by Opposition Members, if they were ever to come to government.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: As many other hon. Members have said, this is the third stage of the Government's trade union legislation. The previous two stages were the Employment Act 1980 arid the Employment Act 1982. I note with appreciation that the word "employment" has been dropped from the title of this legislation. Since the publication of the first Employment Act the Government may have noticed that unemployment has more than doubled. In my city, Leeds, only 30 per cent. of school leavers have been able to find employment this year.
This is a trade union Bill but its characteristics are similar to those of the previous legislation. They are simple. They are based upon ignorance of industrial relations and prejudice against the trade union movement.
I shall illustrate the ignorance by reference to the clauses that deal with strikes and compulsory strike ballots. It is worth remembering that, on average, 95 per cent. of industrial strikes take place on an unofficial basis. Some start unofficially and then become official disputes. I noticed with surprise earlier in the debate that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), speaking on behalf of the Liberal party, seemed to be confused.

Mr. Skinner: The Liberals are on a sabbatical.

Mr. Fatchett: Yes, they have disappeared again.
The hon. Member for Truro said that an official strike resulted from the members involved in the strike organising their own ballot. If he had had more experience of industrial relations he would have realised that an


official strike is one that has been endorsed by the official national executive body or other appropriate body of the trade union. Of course, the hon. Member for Truro may be learning the brief that was carried so weightily before him by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith).
The legislation will introduce a compulsory ballot. It will be compulsory because the immunities enjoyed by trade unions would disappear if the ballot did not take place and we would be back to the legal position prior to 1906. In other words, there would be an element of compulsion on trade unions in regard to official strikes.
The Government have introduced the Bill against their own advice and that of most industrial relations experts. It is incumbent upon the Minister of State when he winds up to tell us why the Government have not pursued what the Green Paper proposed. It said that legislation such as that now proposed would put a premium on irresponsible behaviour.
The Bill will make it easy and necessary for trade unions to insist that they will not associate with a form of industrial action because if they do their funds will be subjected to legal action such as that which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have explained. That must mean that we shall create circumstances in which disputes are harder to settle. Moreover, official union involvement will be put at a premium because the union dare not become involved. Why have the Government ignored their own sensible advice?
Experience of compulsory strike ballots shows that those ballots go in one direction. Some hon. Members will recall the evidence of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. The Government ordered a ballot, albeit in different circumstances but to the same effect, in the 1972 rail dispute. The result was that more than 80 per cent. of the railwaymen rejected the Government's offer.
We could go further and examine the American experience. In compulsory strike ballots there, union members are asked to put their loyalty to the union executive on the line. They do that and the result makes resolution of an industrial dispute that much more difficult. Has the Minister examined that experience? If so, what conclusions does he draw from it? Most academic experts and commentators on industrial relations argue that compulsory strike ballots make disputes more difficult rather than easier to resolve.
As the Secretary of State is trying to find means of resolving industrial diputes, I shall offer two suggestions. Perhaps he would like to comment on why the Government have not introduced legislation to deal with the often thorny problem of recognition. Why have the Government not introduced legislation to deal with recalcitrant employers such as George Ward at Grunwick who are not prepared to give basic and decent rights to trade unionists? Recognition is still a major source of industrial disputes. Why do not the Government legislate to deal with employers who refuse to keep agreements—especially agreements on job security? Many employers have ignored such agreements through the recent recession. The number of disputes could be limited if the Government legislated to prevent that.
Part III deals with political funds. I have noticed the alliance instruction which refers to shareholders. It would be more useful if alliance members bothered to talk about employees, as wealth created by companies is created not

by the directors or shareholders but by those who work on the shop floor. I should like those people to have a right to a ballot on whether the company for which they work should contribute to Conservative party funds. Leeds has a major employer—Northern Engineering Industries—which donated £40,000 to the Conservative party in 1982. That company also made a significant number of its employees redundant in 1982 and 1983. It would be interesting to see whether those employees would vote for the Conservative party and for their company contributing to Conservative party funds if they were balloted on those issues.
I finish now, because I realise that time is running out, as time is running out for this Government and their prejudiced legislation. I suspect that the public will note of this legislation that it had been brought in in an unfair, undemocratic way with one objective—to damage the main Opposition party. Democracy depends on two, equally funded major parties. We do not have that equal funding at the moment, but afterwards there will be a terrible imbalance. The public will notice that and will come out against this legislation and support the trade union movement.

Mr. John Evans: At the outset, I declare my interest and I declare it proudly. I am a section one member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and I am sponsored as a Member of Parliament by that union. I have spoken in virtually every industrial relations debate that we have had since 1974 and I have always declared that interest and made it clear that I am proud of it.
I have another point to make clear, which on this occasion is unique. The Deputy Speaker who has just left the Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), has for many years represented the Labour party, either in government or in opposition, during industrial relations debates. I am a little sad that he has had to leave us.
Two views have been expressed in the debate. The view repeatedly expressed from the Conservative Benches is that we are talking about greater democracy within the trade union movement. Phrases such as "giving the unions back to their members" and "curbing the union barons" have fallen from the lips of every Conservative Member who has spoken. The other view, expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends, is that this legislation is the third instalment in the long-running saga since 1979, the purpose of which is the crippling of the trade union movement.

Mr. Don Dixon: My hon. Friend says that this is the third crippling blow at the trade unions, but it is the fourth, the first being section 6 of the Social Security Act 1981, which, for the first time in history, attacked the dependants of trade unionists who went on strike, and put them in a worse position than the dependants of murderers.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important correction.
I have looked carefully through the legislation and read the various speeches on the Employment Act 1980 and the Employment Act 1982. I am driven to the conclusion that this is the third instalment of the Tory party long-running saga, the aim of which is the crippling of the trade union


movement. It is not an exaggeration to say that we are well on the road to the corporate state under this Government. In almost every walk of life and sphere, restrictions from the Government are aimed at creating the most centralised state in the Western democracies. It used to be said that France was the most centralised state, but Great Britain has rapidly taken over that position.
Anyone who examines the proposition that the Bill would create great democracy in the unions quickly realises that the proposition is a sham. Part I talks about secret ballots for trade union elections, covered by clauses 1 to 5. Our first objection is to the Government's underlying concept that the ideal form of democracy in a union is putting a cross on a piece of paper every five years to elect officers to the executive committee. That in itself is nonsense. If any Tory Member took the trouble to study the British trade union movement, he would soon see that democracy takes many forms and that it means a variety of things within the movement. Democracy has developed in different ways in different trade unions, but always it reflects the historical development of that union.
It is interesting to examine the general structure of officers in the craft unions. One invariably finds that craft unions have many more elected officials than do the general unions, and there are sensible and understandable reasons for that. When a craftsman serves his apprenticeship as a fitter, electrician, boilermaker or joiner, he joins the union when he is 16 — certainly when he is 21—and stays in that union for the rest of his life. He has no particular reason or interest in joining another trade union. Throughout their history and because of their make-up, unions have created a democratic structure of elections and re-elections.
We see a different picture in the general workers' unions — again, for good reasons. The members of general unions tend to work in an industry and join the general workers' union that appertains to that industry. If the general worker leaves that industry and goes to another, he again joins the appropriate general workers' union. Because of the constant shift and flow, the unions for general workers generally tend to have appointed officials.
It is also interesting to look at the ways in which different unions have evolved a democratic structure. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly drew attention to the National Union of Mineworkers. That union is virtually a federation of area trade unions. It is clearly common sense that the leaders of the NUM area federations should join the national executive committee of that union. It would indeed be remarkable if the national executive were made up of different members, rather than the leading area officials. However, it would appear that under this Bill—we shall have to examine the matter in detail in Committee—the NUM would he in difficulty and, contrary to what the Secretary of State said to my right hon. Friend in an earlier intervention, it appears that there would hive to be some rewriting of the NUM's rule book. The Secretary of State said that there would be no need to rewrite any rule book, but that is nonsense, as I hope to prove.
The Transport and General Workers Union, to which some of my hon. Friends have referred, is again a federation of trade union groups. It is common sense that the secretaries of the trade union groups that make up that union serve on the national executive committee of that

body. Again, it would be remarkable if the various trade union groups that make up the TGWU were not on the executive committee.
The National Union of Railwaymen has an ideal form of democracy, but it is a different form of democracy. It has grown up there. The executive members of the NUR, elected from different areas and from the different groups that make up the NUR, serve a three-year term of office, but then have to retire to the shop floor to serve a further three years before they can stand for re-election. The reason is that the NUR decided long ago that it wanted to ensure that its members could always stay in touch with the rank and file.
I come to my own union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. My union angrily rejects any suggestion from the Tory party that it can teach us anything about democracy. The union has grown up on the basis that every member and every full-time official shall be subject to election and re-election. Even the doorkeepers of the trade union branches have to come up for election every 12 months, as well as every shop steward and convener. That was not forced on us by Tory Governments. That was how our union evolved, because that was the wish of our members.
It is improper and impertinent for any Tory Member to suggest that the AUEW form of government should be forced on other unions. Other unions are different from the AUEW in form, shape and manner. That is what democracy is all about—the right of organisations to reach their own conclusions. There are many other forms of election and democracy, and in Committee the Secretary of state will no doubt learn what they are There are many variations in the way that presidents and general secretaries are elected. Some have executive committee votes and some have not.
In the AUEW, the general secretary is elected by the members, but he does not have a vote on the executive council. In other trade unions, the general secretary or president is elected and serves for the rest of his life, at the pleasure of that union's executive council. The same applies in many other walks of life and other aspects of industry and commerce. The one thing held in common, despite the differences in method, is each union's attempt to provide for democracy and accountability within it, taking into account its own circumstances and development. However, the Tory party is determined to upset all that with the introduction of this Bill.
In a democracy, it is not the Government's role to force on a trade union or any other organisation what the Government regard as the ideal form of democracy. The Government are removing the essential right of trade unionists to determine freely the rules, constitution and procedures of their organisations, and in so doing—as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned — they are contravening ILO conventions 87 and 98, which are concerned with freedom of association and the right to organise. In particular, article 3 of convention 87 states that workers' organisations must have
the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes.
I remind the Government that they are signatories to that convention. When they enact this legislation, they will presumably renounce it.
I should like the Minister to deal with two points concerning part I. The Secretary of State said that no re-writing of rule books would be required. However, clause 1(1)(b) provides
that no person remains such a member'—
that is, of the executive council—
for a period of more than five years without being re-elected at such an election.
Four or five years ago the AUEW changed the rules about the executive council and the election of full-time officials. We said that if a full-time official reached the age of 60 and was still in office, he would not have to face re-election until he retired at 65. That rule was introduced for common-sense purposes and was agreed by our rules revision committee. It is obvious that that rule will have to be altered because of the diktat of the Tory Government. Why are we to embark on that course?
Clause 2(2) refers to the classes of members eligible to vote. Paragraph (a) says that
members who are not in employment
do not have the right to vote. At present they have the right to vote in those unions that have the vote. Why are their rights being taken away? Subsection (2)(c) says that
members who are apprentices, trainees or students or new members of the union
will not be allowed to vote. Will the Government define what they mean by
new members of the union?
How long will people have to be members of the union before having the right to vote? Obviously that phrase will have to be defined. I envisage a lot of argument and trouble when the Government attempt to define a new member.
Part III of the Bill deals with secret ballots before industrial action. We cannot understand how any allegedly intelligent or rational Minister could countenance the writing of such nonsense in a Bill to be laid before Parliament. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) was one of the few Tory Members to query anything in the Bill. I assume that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote those clauses into the Bill when he knew that he was leaving his post as Secretary of State for Employment to discover whether the new Secretary of State would have sufficient intelligence to remove them. We all know the answer now—he did not have that intelligence.
The clauses provide that if a union calls an official strke without balloting its Members it could lose its immunities under section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. Yet if an unofficial strike takes place, no action can be taken against a union because it is not covered by the Bill. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex referred to football-field democracy at British Leyland. He said that that would not be allowed under the Bill. I have news for him — it would be perfectly legal. Such action will probably increase if the Bill becomes law. At least 75 per cent. of all industrial disputes are unofficial, and are generally settled within three working days. Every Opposition Member has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that unofficial disputes will greatly increase under the Bill.
When an industrial dispute occurs now, and trade union members take action—especially if they walk out of a plant—the manager or boss of the factory immediately contacts the union office and demands that something be

done to get its members back to work. If the Bill becomes law, trade union officials will have to say, "I dare not interfere because I am liable to put the funds of my union at risk." The Secretary of State cannot deny that.
If any Conservative Member doubts my word, I commend to him the Green Paper "Trade Union Immunities", published in January 1981 by the then Secretary of State, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, where such questions were dealt with in detail in paragraphs 245 to 261. Paragraph 247 mentions the Donovan commission. Anyone interested in these matters pays great regard to the advice of the Donovan commission on industrial disputes. It studied strikes of every sort, however brief and spontaneous, and considered whether some action could be taken against both official and unofficial strikes. It concluded that
there was little justification for the view that workers were less likely to vote for strike action than their leaders. Experience in the USA and Canada had been that strike ballots were likely to go in favour of strike action.
Paragraphs 249 and 250 refer to experience gained under the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Paragraph 260 makes the most damaging comment of all:
If a compulsory ballot provision did not apply to unofficial action, which already constitutes the overwhelming majority of industrial action, such action would continue to enjoy immunity in which case a premium would be placed on irresponsible behaviour.
All Opposition Members have referred to that fact.
I have heard more hypocrisy in the Chamber about part III of the Bill than I have heard for a long time. Part III deals with political funds and political objects. That is the real issue of the Bill. I believe that parts I and II will be greatly amended in Committee. The Opposition have already said where they will seek to amend the Bill and I suspect that the Secretary of State will accept a considerable number of amendments, but on part III of the Bill we must all pause and ask ourselves what we are attempting to do and where we might be going.
According to Conservative Members, it is perfectly all right for the Tory party to receive massive contributions from business and commerce—nothing needs to be done about that—but the Labour party should be handicapped by an attack on the political fund. That is nothing short of disgraceful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) pointed out, not all the political fund goes to the Labour party. A considerable proportion of the political fund is maintained by the trade unions for their own perfectly legitimate and proper political action.
We heard the dangerous contribution of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex who boasted that he is president of the Conservative Trade Unionists. The hon. Gentleman brought to the attention of the Secretary of State the action of NALGO, a union that is not affiliated to the Labour party and has no political fund. The hon. Gentleman asked that the actions of unions such as NALGO should be brought within the terms of the Bill and that NALGO should be prejudiced for defending its members' interests, as the union saw them. That shows the way in which the Tory party is determined to go in the near future.

Mr. Renton: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misquote me. I pointed out that, because NALGO had no political fund and because the idea that it should have a political fund was defeated on a vote of about 8:1, the certification officer had no jurisdiction over the spending by NALGO of £1 million on supporting the


Labour party. I therefore suggested that the certification officer's powers should be extended to include general union funds as well as political funds.

Mr. Evans: When the hon. Gentleman reads tomorrow in Hansard the words that he used, he will withdraw that outrageous suggestion. The hon. Gentleman is attacking a trade union, which is not affiliated to the Labour party, for defending its members. That points to the path down which some sections of the Tory party intend to go in the near future. If it is held to be wrong for one side of industry to fund one party, surely it is equally wrong for another party to receive massive funds from the other side of industry.
The Tories have two conflicting views about trade unions which they trot out at different times depending on the circumstances. On some occasions trade union leaders are said to be spineless, weak-kneed sycophants who do not have the guts to stand up to the militant wreckers who are destroying the fine British trade union movement and preventing the grand old British workman from getting on with his job of working hard for Britain and his employer. That is what we have heard tonight from certain Tory Back Benchers.
On other occasions, depending on the circumstances, trade union leaders are said to be power-mad political barons who neither know nor care what the good old British trade union member needs or desires. It is said that, if only the power-mad trade union leaders could be removed from his back, the grand British workman could get on with his job of working hard for his country and employer and putting the country back on its feet.
Apart from the contradictory nonsense of those two positions, the real absurdity of the lack of knowledge of the British trade union movement on the part of the Tories, the Liberals and the Social Democrats is that they delude themselves into thinking that it is run and owned by general secretaries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The enormous strength, endurance and flexibility of the movement lies in the fact that it is run by tens of thousands of unpaid volunteers at branch officer and shop steward level. That is why the British trade union movement will never be defeated. It is on behalf of those thousands of volunteers that we in the Labour party in Parliament speak tonight, and we shall proudly vote against this iniquitous and silly Bill.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I, too, begin by declaring an interest—

Mr. Winnick: How was the hon. Gentleman elected?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has not even begun.

Mr. Gummer: The problem of debating serious issues which divide the House fundamentally is that we can all be swept away by passionate feelings, and, like anyone else, I can fall prey to that. Nevertheless, this debate deserves the most serious consideration, for on both sides of the House matters of real import have been raised and I shall deal with them as clearly and carefully as I can. In that spirit I take first, head on, the question of the party political—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very unfair to interrupt the Minister in this way at this stage. This is a House in which controversial views are frequently expressed. The Minister has a right to be heard.

Mr. Gummer: In that spirit I take head on the party political criticism with which the debate has been peppered—and which appears now to have reached a crescendo.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I will not give way at this stage. One hon. Gentleman who wishes to intervene has not been present during any part of the debate and I shall not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way".] Very few Opposition Members have been present during much of the debate and therefore they are not in a position to intervene.
It has been argued that we should apply the arrangements for balloting trade unions on political funding to companies as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] This is a serious proposal that should be taken seriously. Our whole approach to balloting on political funds has been based on giving the trade unionist the right to decide how he wishes his union to proceed. That is the approach of the 1913 Act. Anyone reading that Act must wonder whether its framers really envisaged that a ballot of so important a kind should be held once and once only and never reviewed. We have therefore brought forward proposals which merely provide for a review so that every 10 years the members can decide what they want.
The example of the ballot has been before us for 70 years, yet when the Labour party came to change the rules for donations by companies to political parties it did not choose the ballot as its method of control. Its reforms were different in kind. It did not consider owning shares in a company as being on a par with the importance of belonging to a trade union. Trade unionists on the whole have little choice as to the trade union to which they belong, while shareholders have considerable choice—[Interruption.]—as to the companies in which they wish to have shares.

Mr. John Prescott: rose—

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has not been present for any part of the debate, sitting down or standing up, so I shall not give way to him.
Above all, the Labour party admitted no parallelism with trade unions and felt no obligation even to review the arrangements over the political levy, even though there was evidence of considerable concern among trade unionists about the levy — [Interruption.] — and no evidence at all of widespread concern among shareholders in companies. The parallelism now advanced has nothing to do with reality. It is a party political parallel between companies and trade unions which the Labour party has to set out to make.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made an important point when lie said that the political objects which are mentioned in the Bill had been changed much to the detriment of trade unions. That was not the intention. If it is true that the objects are much tighter now rather than just brought up to date, we shall examine them. I look forward to examining them in Committee. However bad the right hon. and learned Gentleman may think our motives, there was no intention to do that to the trade unions. Perhaps he would allow me


that point. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) concentrated on this matter. It is likely that opposition to a particular political party is already covered by the present arrangements, and that, therefore, the change is not material. If that proves not to be the case, we shall examine the matter, because we had no intention of circumscribing the trade unions.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East asked whether a vote for a strike meant that there would have to be a vote to go back to work after a strike. The National Union of Mineworkers must have a vote before a strike; it does not have to vote to return to work after a strike. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has not been present during the debate, apart from the last few moments, so perhaps he will contain himself.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East said that there have been no complaints.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that the Minister is the chairman of the Conservative party, but has he any right to introduce rules about who should make points of order or provide information during the debate?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The only point of order that I heard was made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Gummer: It is difficult to believe that there have been no complaints. I choose the example of the Scottish Carpet Workers Union, which has only 1,836 members, because it operates not far from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. In that union, 100 per cent. of members are contracted in—or not contracted out. Does that mean that not one member of the Scottish Carpet Workers Union voted for the Scottish National party or for the Communists? Does that mean that not one member voted for anyone other than a Socialist? I find that difficult to believe as I believe does the right hon. and learned Member.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about his adherence to the concept of freedom of association in trade unions. We are all anxious about this concept. Does it mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now a convinced opponent of the closed shop? Will he now say that it is to his eternal shame that three railwaymen in the trade union movement had to go to the European Court of Human Rights?

Mr. John Smith: The Minister will be aware that his remarks have nothing to do with the legislation. Since ancillary matters appear to be important to him, will he explain how he is able to argue for democracy in trade unions without a sense of shame when he holds the largest unelected office in Parliament?

Mr. Gummer: Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman refused to answer my question, I shall answer his. I hold that office in an organisation which does not have immunity under the law, which is what we are debating today.

Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister speaking as the chairman of the Conservative party or as a Minister?

Mr. Gummer: That question comes curiously from the vice president of ASTMS — [Interruption] — an

organisation that said that it would use every penny that it had to stop one of its members from taking it to court because—[Interruption.]

Mr. Hoyle: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we should have a little order in the debate. The debate has been heard in comparative silence up to now, despite the controversy of the argument. The Minister is entitled to a fair hearing.

Mr. Hoyle: rose—

Mr. Gummer: The next question that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East asked was about the particularity of the form of the election. He is correct when he says that the Bill demands that there should be elections within five years in each case. In that sense there is a particularity in the form of election.

Mr. Hoyle: rose—

Mr. Gummer: In almost every other area the election and method of election are left to the union. It could be by secret ballot by post, secret ballot at the work place or it could be at a branch so long as all members have an equal chance to vote.
To suggest that there is some draconian, narrow system is to miss the point of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned white collar unions and the fact that they often drew in people from outside who would not therefore be subject to election. There is no white collar union of which I am aware whose general secretary has a vote. He will not therefore be subject to election and can continue as he does now.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then mentioned limited liability companies. The limited liability company is already subject to a series of draconian rules which it must obey, and the result is a much more limited immunity. On more than a hundred occasions company directors are subject to criminal sanctions, but not one when trade union members are.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked a question about the National Union of Mineworkers. He correctly pointed out that it is a federal union and that each representative is elected locally. As long as they are elected, they would be able to go forward to the executive because it is possible for a union to decide that it will reserve a seat for a particular area or part of the union. The hon. Gentleman is correct; there would be no need to change the rule book of the National Union of Mineworkers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) said that this was a modest Bill and asked us to do a number of other things. In support of the Bill's modesty, he gave the quotation from The Guardian. I was pleased that he had read it and was able to put it to good use in an excellent maiden speech. He referred to the important argument that if it is so wicked to interfere, as it is said, with trade unions, why is it that the provision of funds for training is all right and acceptable, but the provision of funds for voting is unacceptable and an interference in trade union affairs?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) said that we were not going fast enough. I will certainly look at the points he mentioned.


I know that he has raised one of them on several occasions. He said once again that it is perfectly proper for the Bill to be brought forward because trade unions have great privileges under the law, and it is therefore not unreasonable for their election to be according to the law and that the entire community should ask them to act responsibly when they have such privileges.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) asked about the customer for sugar. When a customer buys a packet of sugar, he not only contributes a minuscule amount to the Conservative party but he contributes to the political levy payments of all those who made the sugar and who are not contracted out of the political levy. That is a very difficult argument to carry.
Lest the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) believes that I have not answered the point that he rightly made about the ILO convention, which should be considered carefully, may I say that, in its general survey on the application of conventions and the freedom of association, the committee of experts of the ILO said that when legislation contained rules intended to promote democratic principles in trade union organisations, or to ensure that the electoral procedure is conducted in a normal manner and with due respect for the rights of members, such provisions do not involve a violation of the principles of the freedom of association. The hon. Gentleman's' point is wrong, as was that of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans). The committee of experts stated that this legislation is acceptable, and indeed the committee clearly believes that it is a good idea to have democracy in trade unions. The ridiculous concept that the legislation is parallel with that of Brazil shows how peculiar the Opposition's arguments are.
The hon. Member for Warrington, North said that it would be difficult to meet some of the requirements of the Bill in certain circumstances. That is why the phrase
as far as is reasonably practicable
was introduced at all points where those difficulties might reasonably be upheld. The hon. Gentleman will find that the Bill is not the draconian legislation that he fears. However, if he believes that the Bill will cripple the Labour party, it suggests that if put to the vote not enough people will wish to contribute to the Labour party. If that is the case, it is an odd democratic principle that they should be forced to contribute to the Labour party. However, I must be fair to the hon. Gentleman, who did not say that that would be the case; he laic that the present system was fine because all union members wished to contribute. Let us have the ballot and prove it.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there has been a previous occasion in the House when the spokesman for the Department of Employment, which is an important Government Department, was a representative of the Conservative party—[Interruption.] Will he tell us in a sentence whether he is speaking as chairman of the Conservative party, or as a spokesman for the Department of Employment; and will he tell us from where he gets his money for each position?

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman should know the answer to that, because he appointed the treasurer of the Labour party as Front Bench spokesman on employment.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman well understands from his experience on the Front Bench that if the Minister does not give way he should not persist.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Gummer: Although the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) was elected as treasurer of the Labour party, the right hon. Gentleman still found it possible to appoint him to speak on employment matters.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I must say that the comparison that he has made is absolutely false. I am saying that the hon. Gentleman's appointment to reply to the debate is a degradation of the House of Commons. He has had his salary enormously increased. He is put there as a spokesman for the Conservative party on a highly controversial matter. I suggest to the Government that the best thing that they can do is to withdraw the hon. Gentleman as a spokesman. We want to discuss these matters properly but as long as the hon. Gentleman is there it is a corrupt business.

Mr. Gummer: I think that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will feel that that is an unworthy contribution to the debate.
Large numbers of hon. Members who have been present during the debate have made contributions to it. There is no doubt that the individual and particular points that right hon. and hon. Members have made will be answered in Committee or I shall write to all those whose points I have not been able to cover.
This is a Second Reading debate and it is our purpose to consider the principle of the Bill. That principle must not be forgotten in the rush to pursue the party political differences that we have seen. We are talking about democracy and the right of every trade unionist to play a full part in the affairs of his trade union.
Labour Members might have grave doubts about the motives of Ministers and Conservative Members. That they entertain those doubts has been clear from the debate. That those doubts are ill-founded has also become clear. Even if Labour Members were correct in their suspicions about motivation, they still have to answer the fundamental challenge—why are they so frightened of equal, fair and secret voting in trade unions? That is surprising in a party that has been proud all evening to say how its birth and antecedents were indissolubly linked with the demand for wider democracy. The Labour party and the trade union movement have always insisted—the Labour party has insisted all evening—that they are democratic to their very heart. If democracy is at the centre of both the trade union movement and the Labour party, how can it be that those great organisations should seek to frustrate the purposes that are before us today?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman has not been here during the debate.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Gummer.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Gummer: We have had no—

Mr. Heffer: I am an elected chairman of the Labour party.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mr. Gummer: No doubt the hon. Gentleman could not be present for the debate. None of the present free, fair and secret elections showed up during Labour's leadership campaign. Was it too much to expect support from the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) for the principle of one man, one vote? After all, it was he who told ITN viewers that the Labour party—[Interruption.]

Mr. Roland Boyes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to make a point of order or is he seeking to interrupt?

Mr. Roland Boyes: I was seeking to interrupt.

Mr. Gummer: The Labour party should be wholly in favour of the principles and strategy of the Bill. It is a question not just of democracy but of the reputation of the trade union movement. We all know the low public esteem in which the trade unions are now held. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale made that point clearly. It should concern all trade unionists and also all their true friends and real allies. There should be no worry for trade unionists about a Bill that merely asks that their members should choose their main elected officers. There should be no worry for trade unionists about a Bill that states that every trade unionist should have the chance to vote in secret, on equal terms and freely for officers.
There should be no worry for the Labour party about a Bill that gives to every member of a trade union the right to decide whether he wants to subscribe to a political fund. There should be no worry for the Labour party about a Bill that sets out to carry out the same principles that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney demanded in his interview on ITN for the votes within the Labour party. There should be no worry about the Bill for any democrat.
The Bill is of vital importance to the trade union movement. We must make sure that the public take the movement seriously. It will not be taken seriously until the immunities that are given to it are properly and responsibly protected by democracy. The link between immunities and democracy must be absolute. The public will not treat union leaders seriously until they carry out their duties within that immunity after a democratic election. The trade union movement itself will not recover its proper place in our society until the public have confidence in it.
One of the things that amazes me about the debate is that the Labour party seems to think that only it is interested in the trade unions. However, we in the Conservative party would not be in government if it were not for the votes of trade unionists. However insulting the former Leader of the Opposition may have been to me, I would not be a Minister were it not for the votes of trade unionists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is why I have a vested interest in the Bill. I want to continue to have the votes of those trade unionists.

The division is not between those who seek to emasculate the trade union movement and those who champion its doughty independence, although no doubt that caricature will appear in tomorrow's edition of the Morning Star. The distinction is between those who seek to maintain a ramshackle trade union system and those who want to make the trade union movement democratically elected to do its job and to protect the people whom it represents.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 189.

Division No. 62]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alton, David
Coombs, Simon


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cope, John


Amess, David
Cormack, Patrick


Ancram, Michael
Corrie, John


Arnold, Tom
Couchman, James


Ashby, David
Cranborne, Viscount


Ashdown, Paddy
Crouch, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dicks, T.


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Baldry, Anthony
Dover, Denshore


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Durant, Tony


Beith, A. J.
Dykes, Hugh


Bendall, Vivian
Eggar, Tim


Benyon, William
Emery, Sir Peter


Berry, Sir Anthony
Evennett, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eyre, Reginald


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fallon, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Farr, John


Body, Richard
Favell, Anthony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bottomley, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fletcher, Alexander


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Braine, Sir Bernard
Forman, Nigel


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brinton, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fox, Marcus


Brooke, Hon Peter
Franks, Cecil


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Browne, John
Freeman, Roger


Bruce, Malcolm
Freud, Clement


Bruinvels, Peter
Fry, Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Galley, Roy


Budgen, Nick
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Burt, Alistair
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butcher, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Butterfill, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carttiss, Michael
Gorst, John


Cartwright, John
Gow, Ian


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gower, Sir Raymond


Chapman, Sydney
Grant, Sir Anthony


Chope, Christopher
Greenway, Harry


Churchill, W. S.
Gregory, Conal


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Grist, Ian


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Ground, Patrick


Clegg, Sir Walter
Grylls, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Gummer, John Selwyn






Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Major, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Malins, Humfrey


Hanley, Jeremy
Malone, Gerald


Hannam,John
Maples, John


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Marland, Paul


Harris, David
Marlow, Antony


Haselhurst, Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mates, Michael


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Maude, Francis


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'tolk)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hawksley, Warren
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hayes, J.
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hayward, Robert
Meadowcroft, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Merchant, Piers


Heddle, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Henderson, Barry
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hickmet, Richard
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Hicks, Robert
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman


Hind, Kenneth
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hirst, Michael
Moate, Roger


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Monro, Sir Hector


Holt, Richard
Montgomery, Fergus


Hooson, Tom
Moore, John


Hordern, Peter
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Howard, Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Mudd, David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Murphy, Christopher


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Neale, Gerrard


Howells, Geraint
Needham, Richard


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Neubert, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Newton, Tony


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hunter, Andrew
Normanton Tom


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Norris, Steven


Irving, Charles
Onslow, Cranley


Jackson, Robert
Oppenheim, Philip


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Ottaway, Richard


Jessel, Toby
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Johnston, Russell
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Parris, Matthew


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pawsey, James


Kennedy, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Penhaligon, David


Key, Robert
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Pink, R. Bonner


King, Rt Hon Tom
Pollock, Alexander


Kirkwood, Archibald
Porter, Barry


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Knowles, Michael
Powley, John


Knox, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Lang, Ian
Price, Sir David


Latham, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lawler, Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Raffan, Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rathbone, Tim


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lightbown, David
Renton, Tim


Lilley, Peter
Rhodes James, Robert


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lyell, Nicholas
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Macfarlane, Neil
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Roe, Mrs Marion


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Maclean, David John.
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Maclennan, Robert
Rost, Peter


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Rowe, Andrew


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Ryder, Richard


McQuarrie, Albert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Madel, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy





St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Thornton, Malcolm


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shersby, Michael
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Silvester, Fred
Viggers, Peter


Sims, Roger
Waddington, David


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wainwright, R.


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Speller, Tony
Wall, Sir Patrick


Spence, John
Wallace, James


Spencer, D.
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walters, Dennis


Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stanley, John
Warren, Kenneth


Steel, Rt Hon David
Watson, John


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Whitfield, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stradling Thomas, J.
Winterton, Nicholas


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Tapsell, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John (Strangford)
Woodcock, Michael


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Yeo, Tim


Terlezki, Stefan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Concannon, Rt Hon J D.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Conlan, Bernard


Anderson, Donald
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cowans, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Craigen, J. M.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Crowther, Stan


Barnett, Guy
Cunningham, Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dixon, Donald


Blair, Anthony
Dobson, Frank


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dormand, Jack


Boyes, Roland
Douglas, Dick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Ellis, Raymond


Caborn, Richard
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Ewing, Harry


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Ian
Faulds, Andrew


Canavan, Dennis
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fisher, Mark


Clarke, Thomas
Flannery, Martin


Clay, Robert
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Forrester, John


Cohen, Harry
Foster, Derek


Coleman, Donald
Foulkes, George






Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
O'Brien, William


Garrett, W. E.
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Park, George


Godman, Dr Norman
Parry, Robert


Golding, John
Patchett, Terry


Gould, Bryan
Pendry, Tom


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pike, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Prescott, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Radice, Giles


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Randall, Stuart


Haynes, Frank
Redmond, M.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Heffer, Eric S.
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Home Robertson, John
Robertson, George


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hoyle, Douglas
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Ryman, John


Hume, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Janner, Hon Greville
Sheerman, Barry


John, Brynmor
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lambie, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Snape, Peter


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Soley, Clive


Litherland, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Stott, Roger


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin


Loyden, Edward
Straw, Jack


McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McGuire, Michael
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McKelvey, William
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


McNamara, Kevin
Tinn, James


McTaggart, Robert
Torney, Tom


McWilliam, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marek, Dr John
Wareing, Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Welsh, Michael


Martin, Michael
White, James


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wilson, Gordon


Meacher, Michael
Winnick, David


Michie, William
Woodall, Alec


Mikardo, Ian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce



Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mr. Ron Leighton and Mr. Allen McKay


Nellist, David



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Question accordingly agreed yo.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made—[Mr. Michael Cocks]—and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House:—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 356.

Division No. 63]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Barnett, Guy


Anderson, Donald
Barron, Kevin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bell, Stuart


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bermingham, Gerald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bidwell, Sydney





Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hume, John


Boyes, Roland
Janner, Hon Greville


Bray, Dr Jeremy
John, Brynmor


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lambie, David


Caborn, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Litherland, Robert


Campbell, Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Canavan, Dennis
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Loyden, Edward


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Hugh


Clarke, Thomas
McGuire, Michael


Clay, Robert
McKelvey, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cohen, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Coleman, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McWilliam, John


Conlan, Bernard
Madden, Max


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)^
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbett, Robin
Martin, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cowans, Harry
Maxton, John


Craigen, J. M.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Crowther, Stan
Meacher, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Michie, William


Dalyell, Tam
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dewar, Donald
Nellist, David


Dixon, Donald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dobson, Frank
O'Brien, William


Dormand, Jack
O'Neill, Martin


Douglas, Dick
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dubs, Alfred
Park, George


Duffy, A. E. P.
Parry, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Patchett, Terry


Eadie, Alex
Pendry, Tom


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter


Ellis, Raymond
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Prescott, John


Ewing, Harry
Radice, Giles


Fatchett, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Faulds, Andrew
Redmond, M.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fisher, Mark
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Flannery, Martin
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, George


Forrester, John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foster, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Foulkes, George
Rooker, J. W.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Garrett, W. E.
Rowlands, Ted


George, Bruce
Ryman, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Godman, Dr Norman
Sheerman, Barry


Golding, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R,


Gould, Bryan
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hardy, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Harman, Ms Harriet
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Snape, Peter


Haynes, Frank
Soley, Clive


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Heffer, Eric S.
Stott, Roger


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Strang, Gavin


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Straw, Jack


Home Robertson, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hoyle, Douglas
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Torney, Tom






Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Winnick, David


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Woodall, Alec


Wareing, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Welsh, Michael



White, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Ron Leighton and Mr. Allen McKay.


Williams, Rt Hon A.



Wilson, Gordon





NOES


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alton, David
Dickens, Geoffrey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dicks, T.


Amess, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Arnold, Tom
Dover, Denshore


Ashby, David
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Ashdown, Paddy
Dunn, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Durant, Tony


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Anthony
Eyre, Reginald


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Fallon, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Farr, John


Beith, A. J.
Favell, Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Benyon, William
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Berry, Sir Anthony
Fletcher, Alexander


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forth, Eric


Body, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Marcus


Bottomley, Peter
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Freeman, Roger


Braine, Sir Bernard
Freud, Clement


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Galley, Roy


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Browne, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bruce, Malcolm
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bruinvels, Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodlad, Alastair


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gorst, John


Budgen, Nick
Gow, Ian


Bulmer, Esmond
Gower, Sir Raymond


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir Anthony


Butcher, John
Greenway, Harry


Butterfill, John
Gregory, Conal


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Carttiss, Michael
Grist, Ian


Cartwright, John
Ground, Patrick


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grylls, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, John Selwyn


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Churchill, W. S.
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hannam, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harris, David


Clegg, Sir Walter
Haselhurst, Alan


Cockeram, Eric
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Conway, Derek
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Coombs, Simon
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, John
Hayes, J.


Cormack, Patrick
Hayward, Robert


Corrie, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Couchman, James
Heddle, John


Cranborne, Viscount
Henderson, Barry





Hickmet, Richard
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Monro, Sir Hector


Hind, Kenneth
Montgomery, Fergus


Hirst, Michael
Moore, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Holt, Richard
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hooson, Tom
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David


Howard, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Neale, Gerrard


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Needham, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Nelson, Anthony


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Neubert, Michael


Howells, Geraint
Newton, Tony


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Normanton, Tom


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Norris, Steven


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Onslow, Cranley


Hunter, Andrew
Oppenheim, Philip


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Irving, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Jackson, Robert
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Parris, Matthew


Jessel, Toby
Patten, John (Oxford)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pattie, Geoffrey


Johnston, Russell
Pawsey, James


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Penhaligon, David


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pink, R. Bonner


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Pollock, Alexander


Key, Robert
Porter, Barry


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Powell, William (Corby)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Powley, John


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Knowles, Michael
Price, Sir David


Knox, David
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lang, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Latham, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Renton, Tim


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lightbown, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lord, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lyell, Nicholas
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Macfarlane, Neil
Roe, Mrs Marion


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Rost, Peter


Maclean, David John.
Rowe, Andrew


Maclennan, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Ryder, Richard


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McQuarrie, Albert
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Madel, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Major, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Malins, Humfrey
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Malone, Gerald
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Maples, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marland, Paul
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marlow, Antony
Shersby, Michael


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Silvester, Fred


Mates, Michael
Sims, Roger


Maude, Francis
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Meadowcroft, Michael
Speed, Keith


Merchant, Piers
Speller, Tony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spence, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Spencer, D.


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Squire, Robin


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor






Stanley, John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Steen, Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stern, Michael
Walden, George


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wallace, James


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Walters, Dennis


Stradling Thomas, J.
Ward, John


Sumberg, David
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Tapsell, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, John (Strangford)
Watson, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Terlezki, Stefan
Wheeler, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Whitfield, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Whitney, Raymond


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thome, Neil (Ilford S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thornton, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wood, Timothy


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Woodcock, Michael


Tracey, Richard
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Vaughan, Dr Gerard



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Waddington, David
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Wainwright, R.

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills)

TRADE UNION BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Trade Union Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of money provided by Parliament, of any increase attributable to that Act in sums so payable under section 1 of the Employment Act 1980 (payments in respect of secret ballots).—[Mr. Major.]

Asbestos

[Relevant documents: Marketing and use of asbestos Document No. 9369/82, Protection from asbestos at work Document No. 10664/82; For relevant report of the European Legislation Committee, see HC 34-xvi (1982–83) paras. 1 and 2.]

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9369/82 for a Council Directive amending for the fifth time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations, and of the Explanatory Memoranda of 14th April 1983 and 3rd November 1983, and of European Community Document No. 10664/82 for a Council Directive on the protection of workers from the risks due to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents at work: asbestos, and of the Explanatory Memoranda of 14th April 1983 and 3rd November 1983; and welcomes the achievement by the Community of a large measure of harmonised control in this crucial area, and both the Government's success in reaching agreement on these directives without reduction in the standards of protection of United Kingdom workers and the Government's intention of seeking early agreement on further restrictions on the marketing and use of asbestos fibres.
The proposals for these directives were last debated by the House on 22 October 1981. If, with the permission of

the House, I am allowed again to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I intend to introduce the proposals, listen to the debate, and perhaps answer the points that are raised by Opposition Members on the subject of asbestos.
We believe that problems of asbestos are of great importance. That is why this country has taken a lead in the European Community in trying to frame Europe-wide regulations which will suit—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members kindly leave the Chamber in silence, please?

Mr. Gummer: We believe that the problems of asbestos are of great importance and, therefore, the United Kingdom has taken a particular interest and lead in the European Community in order to initiate the tough action that we believe is alone necessary if we are to contain a major problem.
The harmonisation of health and safety standards within the Community brings considerable benefits. It is one of the ways in which we can ensure that the costs are fairly covered and do not lead to a competitive disadvantage for this country. Therefore, we are introducing several changes in the law. The first directive is the worker protection directive. It will apply to all activities in which workers are, or may be, exposed in the course of their work to dust arising from asbestos or materials containing it. The control limits are the upper limits of permitted exposure and the directive requires action to be taken where they are exceeded. It is, of course, an upper limit and in order to meet those limits, most manufacturers will have to aim somewhat below them. The control limits set by the directive are 0·5 fibres/millilitre for crocidolite—which is blue asbestos—and 1 fibre/millilitre for other types.
In the meantime, article 1·3 of the directive allows member states to go further than the minimum requirements and we in the United Kingdom will be doing that. That is a symbol of the activity that we have tried to undertake, and I hope that all hon. Members will agree that it has been necessary for us to go further than some of our partners wanted. We shall continue to press to ensure that other countries come into line with the tougher arrangements that we have made.
The directive's requirement to reduce exposure to the minimum reasonably practicable rightly applies to all workers who come into contact, however slight, with asbestos. However, it was recognised that some circumstances warranted more specific measures. The directive therefore sets an action level of exposure at which additional protection measures come into operation. It is set at 0·25 fibres/millilitre over eight hours or an equivalent over three months.
I have decided not to go into the details of each directive, because I think that it is more important for hon. Members to discuss the areas that they think vital. With the leave of the House, I shall comment on their points at the end of the debate. However, the marketing and use directive has a different scope, and deals with the prohibition of crocidolite and labelling of asbestos products. The directive places a general ban on the marketing and use of products containing crocidolite. I refer to article 2. Member states are allowed to exempt certain products such as asbestos cement pipes, seals, gaskets and torque convertors, which are part of the clutch mechanism in automatic cars. The United Kingdom


argued for total prohibition and we shall not be making use of those exemptions. That puts us at a disadvantage compared with our competitors, but we feel that we should support that higher level of safety.
The directive sets out a standard labelling scheme embracing all asbestos products made Dr marketed in the Community. That comes under article 3. This accords with the voluntary scheme already adopted by United Kingdom manufacturers. We shall have further discussions on prohibiting certain asbestos products. Discussions have been re-opened in the council working group on the prohibition of products containing asbestos other than crocidolite. Obviously the United Kingdom's general approach is to support the strongest measures in this area.
Many of the requirements of these directives were foreshadowed by the recommendations of the advisory committee on asbestos, in its final report in 1979. In 1980, when the European Commission published its proposals, the Health and Safety Commission decided to delay implementation—until the directives were agreed—of those advisory committee recommendations that over-lapped with the provisions in the directive. However, despite that, several initiatives were undertaken while negotiations were proceeding. There was an approved code of practice on work with asbestos insulation and coating which was published in 1981. It covered asbestos removal, which is recognised as the mcst dangerous type of work involving asbestos. I think that all hon. Members will agree that that is one of problems. Asbestos was so widely used that it is often not known to be present by those who are dismantling a building.
Two cases in Harwich, near to my constituency, are now before the courts, so I cannot comment other than generally on them. However, it is quite clear that proper action was not taken. We must be extremely vigilant. However good the regulations may be. asbestos can be found in all sorts of places where people do not expect to find it. All sorts of people, even those concerned with painting and decorating, must be vigilant.
Britain has carried out a full programme of research into the measurement and monitoring of asbestos in air. Parts of the programme have been completed and other longer-term projects are still under way.
It is a great improvement that the House now has more regular debates about health and safety. In the past the House has not spent enough time considering those issues. During an earlier debate we said that it was partly though British initiative in measurement that we have move forward on the European and international level. The British scheme has made that possible. One of our problems hitherto was that we could not achieve international agreement because of disagreement on how to measure this extremely difficult substance.
Most importantly, the Health and Safety Executive, through the factory inspectorate, and using existing legislation under the asbestos regulations of 1969 and relevant provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, gradually moved the asbestos industry towards the standards recommended by the advisory committee on asbestos, which were set out in the draft directive.
We must admit that it takes some time to make the mechanical and other alterations for industry to meet the new, very strict regulations. I felt that the time it had taken to do many of these things might have been shorter. But the more I consider it, the more I believe that we did not lose time during that period because the factory

inspectorate was moving the industry, in a direct line that could be plotted, towards meeting stricter and stricter controls.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the factory inspectorate is sufficiently numerous and well equipped — for example, with monitoring devices—to fulfil its functions?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has made an important point. It is a crucial part of the whole decision. I am informed that currently the factory inspectorate is sufficiently numerous and has sufficient resources to do the job.

Mr. John Evans: No.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may disagree, but that is my information. I am taking a personal interest to ensure that that remains the case. In such serious matters we cannot use the arguments that we sometimes use in our debates. There are sufficient resources at present. They have been increasing in real terms since 1979. It is important that we keep an eye on the matter. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) is especially concerned because of the leadership he has shown about the Fulham power station.
In August 1982 the Health and Safety Commission and the Government decided that Britain could wait no longer for Europe on control limits, and that the control limits recommended by the advisory committee should be introduced from 1 January 1983. We introduced those limits, which were 1 fibre/millilitre for chrysotile —white asbestos; 0·5 fibre/millilitre for amosite—brown asbestos; while retaining a limit of 0·2 fibre millilitre for crocidolite—which effectively rules out its use in manufacturing. That is serious evidence of our great concern. I would have been happier had the whole of Europe moved as quickly as it should have moved. We are part of that Community. Sometimes hon. Members argue about our contribution to it. On this occasion we took a major lead in the changes that have been made.
On 23 August 1983 the commission, on the basis of the reviews for which it had asked, and taking account of the directives that has been adopted, agreed a programme for action on asbestos based on a new framework of legislation. Underpinning this system of controls will be three sets of regulations. I hope that the House will bear with me as I go through them because they are important as an introduction.
The first group is the asbestos licensing regulations which will bring work on asbestos removal under stricter control. They will require a licence for most work with asbestos insulation and coating. That will mean that the licence can be taken away so that we will, in effect, have a register of those companies which are licensed to do this work. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham will be pleased to know that such a register will be available. It will enable people to know that a firm has had a licence from the Health and Safety Executive.
I shall bring the regulations before the House this week and they will come into force next year. This will allow time for applications to be considered, licences to be issued and medical examinations undertaken. The Central Electricity Generating Board has voluntarily accepted that in future it will not sell power stations for demolition until it has supervised the removal of asbestos. All hon.


Members will agree that that will remove many of the fears about the sale of a large centre covered with asbestos to a company that might be less than careful about its removal.
I come now to the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations. On 18 October the Commission approved a consultative document incorporating draft regulations to prohibit the use of certain types of asbestos. If hon. Members wish me to go through those, I shall be happy to do so if, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you allow me to speak again in the debate.
The Commission recommended that these regulations should be introduced by June 1984. This is a tight timescale. The Commission is allowing two months for consultation and the chairman is aiming to submit proposals to the Secretary of State by April next year.
The third set of regulations implements the remaining requirements of the EC directives. As well as implementing the outstanding requirements of the directives — for example, on air monitoring, medical surveillance and record keeping—these regulations and an accompanying approved code of practice will implement the remaining workplace recommendations of the advisory committee on asbestos. The executive is working urgently on this and a draft consultation document will be presented to the Commission by January 1984. I have asked the chairman of the Commission to speed up the consultation process and I hope that final proposals will be agreed before the end of next year.
The Government have been pressing the Commission for the fastest possible timetable and I know that some parts of the industry feel that we have moved too far, too fast. I do not believe that that is true. I understand the concern and worry, but we are dealing with an extremely dangerous substance and it is important that the public should be reassured that people working with asbestos will not be subject to danger.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that if one does not speak seriously about this subject one cannot warn people effectively about the dangers. If, on the other hand, one constantly talks about the dangers, many people are worried unnecessarily. It is a difficult line to walk. It is better to warn people about the dangers, even though one may cause unnecessary worry, than to allow people to do things, as happened recently in one or two cases, not knowing the dangers of the substance with which they were dealing.
We are also taking action on new control limits. The limits will come into force on 1 August 1984. They are based on the conclusions of the Commission's working groups on medical aspects and engineering controls. The limit for crocidolite will remain at 0·2 fibres millilitre; the limit for amosite will be reduced from 0·5 to 0·2 fibres millilitre and that for chrysotile from 1 fibre per millilitre to 0·5 fibres millilitre. The Commission has also stressed that employers will be expected to comply with the limits before the above date wherever possible and the factory inspectorate will be pressing this whenever it can. I again emphasise that this is a tough programme. It is tougher than those to be found almost anywhere else in the world, and I am pleased that we are able to carry it out.

Mr. Max Madden: The Minister has reflected on the Government's reorganisation of the

factory inspectorate some years ago on a regional basis and involving a reduction in the factory inspectorate. Does he agree that, apart from rigorous enforcement, heavy sanctions are appropriate and that the current fines are lamentably low? If he is to pursue a tough policy, does he agree that heavy financial penalties are necessary, and will he say what fines he anticipates?

Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I answered a similar point at Question Time today. I am not satisfied with the way in which fines are being charged, so to speak, when a case comes up. There is some sign that they are not always taken as seriously as we should hope. We know from experience with the Health and Safety Executive that cases are taken to court only when necessary. Therefore, the more serious cases tend to be brought to court, and that should be reflected in the way in which fines are imposed. It is not for me to comment on that; I merely say that there is a feeling abroad on the issue.
As for the amounts of the fines, I am discussing this matter at present with the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and will report to the House when I have completed those discussions. I will see what can be done because the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point which I shall not fail to follow up, and I will be in touch with him about it when I have an answer.
The asbestos industry working group is being established. We have agreed its composition and terms of reference. It will be chaired by the area director of the west and north Yorkshire area, who is in charge of the factory inspectorate's national responsibility group for the asbestos manufacturing industry, and we look to that for a great deal of help.
A considerable amount of additional guidance material will be made available, for one of the problems here is the small amount of asbestos which somebody may come across or which may be in a whole area where it was not expected to be. It is vital that suitable guidance material should be available, and we shall do our best to provide it. We are already providing a good deal and I hope that we shall make more available.
The proposals before the House owe much to earlier work. I have set out the Commission's programme for completing the framework of regulations, codes of practice and guidance to control work with asbestos. In the next year this work will be substantially completed. The Commission's proposals are firmly based on the great deal of progress that has been made in the last four years. That has enabled the United Kingdom to move quickly to implement the European directives and actually to lead those directives in the direction in which we wanted them to go, with a great deal more severity than they would otherwise have had.
While this work is being completed, the Health and Safety Executive will continue to ensure, using its existing powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, and particularly the asbestos regulations, that work with asbestos is subject to very tight controls indeed.
I am afraid that these problems will be with us for many years. Asbestos substitutes are increasingly making the use of asbestos in manufacture unnecessary, but the trouble is that we have used asbestos widely for many years. We do not always know where it is, there are some areas where we do not have successful substitutes, and hon. Members must accept that in a few areas one must balance one sort


of safety against another. I will give one example which concerns me considerably. It is the question of the brakes on lifts in mineshafts. These are crucial to safety in mines. There is no adequate substitute at present for the asbestos component in those brakes. There are other examples, but that is a most startling one. It would be wrong to ban the use of asbestos and then make the cages less safe. It is not an easy matter and I ask hon. Members to be particularly careful in suggesting banning it. That is the sort of attitude with which we all start, but it is not all that easy.

Mr. Dave Nellist: When the Minister says that there is no alternative to the use of asbestos in brake linings for mineshaft lifts, does he mean that scientifically there is no alternative or that on the same cost-effective basis there is no comparable alternative at a similar price?

Mr. Gummer: I understand that the position is much nearer to the first of those alternatives. There is no satisfactory alternative, even if we do not talk about cost limits. I believe that asbestos performs the task most effectively. I am keeping a close eye on this matter. My instinct is to be tough, because I am sure that that is the approach that the House expects me to adopt.

Ms. Jo Richardson: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I must continue. I should be happy to answer the hon. Lady later.
We have done our best to produce w!aat is some of the toughest legislation in such a large area. Europe has benefited from Britain's determination in this field. We are taking tough measures in those areas where the rest of Europe has failed to proceed as far. I hope that, in general, the House will agree that this is the way to proceed, although I shall be happy to listen to hon. Members and ascertain whether we can undertake other measures to help.

Mr. John Evans: Now that we have returned to more normal times and proceedings after the excitement of an hour or so ago, it is worth mentioning that this is a major subject and the level of attendance in the House at this time of night shows the feelings of hon. Members.
I am especially pleased to participate in the debate when the documents enjoy the excellent title "Protection of Workers and the Marketing and Use of Certain Dangerous Substances and Preparations — Asbestos" because I can make a modest claim that I played an important role in bringing to public attention the dangers of asbestos. In 1977, after an 18-month investigatory period, I produced a report for the European Parliament on the health hazards of asbestos which was adopted by that Parliament in October 1977.
It is interesting to look back on some of the things that I asked for in the resolution that was put before the European Parliament. Paragraph 2 of the report states:
Considers, however, that sufficient evidence has accumulated to show that asbestos presents a danger both to workers in the asbestos industry and to those exposed in other situations and that it is time to draw conclusions from this evidence".
It is significant that that was written only six years ago. It was not universally accepted at that time.
Paragraph 3 of the report states:
Stresses that asbestos is a carcinogen".

I have great difficulties with that statement. Much opposition was mounted to try to have that statement watered down and amended. We now accept without dispute that asbestos is a carcinogen. Paragraph 4 of the reports states:
Emphasizes that all varieties of asbestos in use in the Community can present a danger to human health".
I stress that in 1977 some of these conclusions were being hotly disputed.
Paragraph 7 states:
Calls for a ban on crocidolite in all Member States".
We have not yet reached that point. I am a little disappointed that in document 9369/82 we are allowing the Germans and the Belgians to carry on using crocidolite. I am more disappointed at what will be inserted after the fourth recital. The paragraph states:
Whereas, however there is at present no justification for a total ban on crocidolite (blue asbestos)".
I understand the reason for the wording, and the jockeying for position that goes on in the Council of Ministers and the European institutions, with countries always trying to look after their own interests, but I should have preferred a different form of words in this context.
There are no 800 mm diameter pipes using crocidolite in Britain at present, but can the Minister assure the House that if someone wished to use such pipes in Britain, this amendment could not be used to introduce blue asbestos again? In the previous debate on the subject the then Minister said that we would inevitably have a statutory ban on the use of crocidilite in Britain, but we have no such ban as yet.
The major document, 10664/82, is a substantial step forward. It does not go as far as all of us would wish, but I appreciate what the Minister said about getting movement agreed by the 10 member countries. In article 3, new paragraph 2 states that a worker must not be exposed to asbestos for longer than a total of four hours during a 40-hour week. Given the undoubtedly dangerous nature of the substance, does not the Minister think that four hours is too long and that the time should be reduced to one hour? Although we would all wish such exposure to be removed completely, that would not be practicable now.
Article 5 adds the word "extraction", which is of major significance because, as the Minister said, and as the entire country now appreciates, the major problem is in the demolition of old buildings, warships, steelworks and power stations, which are covered in asbestos, much of it blue asbestos. It must be stressed that during the demolition of old factories and the breaking up of old warships and merchantmen, there is a potential danger to residents as well as to workers. Some women and children would not have the faintest idea that they were being exposed to asbestos.
Article 6 introduces the words
the entry of respirable fibres into the air".
I am not sure what that means, but perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it is significant. Article 12 refers to the protective equipment issued to workers and adds the vital words
approved by the responsible authorities".
That is significant, because it is diabolical that some employers have issued only paper face masks to workers stripping asbestos. It is essential that the Health and Safety Executive gives instructions on the protective clothing that should be issued to all workers who have contact with asbestos.


Article 15 refers to a worker who has inhaled asbestos. It states that
No worker shall be exposed … or continue to be exposed to inhaling asbestos at work if, following a medical check, it is considered that this could lead to a deterioration in his health.
Would the medical authorities that carried out the check on the worker and decided that he was at risk inform the worker that he had been contaminated by asbestos? That is important for two reasons. The first is that he should not go back to anywhere else where asbestos is used and the second is that he can make a compensation claim against his employers.
Article 16 is also extremely important. The issue is of great significance not only to the worker but to his wife, children and dependants. The article states what facilities there must be for the laundering of the clothes worn by workers stripping asbestos. I understand that those workers are taking their clothes home, to be washed by their wives.

Ms. Richardson: The workers have always taken their clothes home for their wives to wash. My constituency of Barking has a history of workers who worked at Cape having contact with asbestos, and whose wives had to wash their overalls, and contracted asbestosis. It is a common and long-established practice.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I shall refer to that aspect.
An amendment to the directive now lays down that special facilities must be supplied for the laundering of workers' clothes in the undertaking. If there are no special facilities in the undertaking, it states what steps have to be taken to launder the workers' clothes at laundries that can cope with such work. I accept my hon. Friend's point.
Article 18 states flatly:
Forms of lung cancer caused by asbestos shall be regarded unconditionally as occupational diseases.
It is important that the medical profession is aware of that. Doctors should make sure that when they carry out medical checks and inspections on individuals who are suffering from the effects of asbestos, they ask them about things that have happened that may have brought them into contact with asbestos. We are now aware that contact with asbestos can result in asbestosis, or a form of cancer, after a gap of even as long as 40 years. As the Minister said, that is the nature of the problem.
I worry about our practices in the shipyards and ship repair yards 25 and 30 years ago. I wonder whether I may have been infected by asbestos. None of us was aware of the dangers of asbestos. All the pipes, boilers, heat exchanges and heat pumps were covered with asbestos. It used to be mixed on the floor of the boiler room or engine room. There was dust everywhere. Not only the laggers lagging the pipes but the fitters, electricians and plumbers were in immediate contact with asbestos. As my hon. Friend said, we were taking asbestos home on our boiler suits, and our wives washed them, so our wives and children were put at risk.
When I referred to such matters a few years ago, and certainly in 1977 when I was producing the report, I was accused of being an alarmist and of scaremongering. It is possible to refer to such matters today and not be accused of scaremongering or causing alarm.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being an alarmist and a scaremonger because I have information which states that article 16 is in accordance with normal customer practice within United Kingdom industry.

Mr. Evans: I expected that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) would rise to the bait that I offered, and I am pleased that he did. I am prepared to accept that some factories, such as Turner and Newall, have excellent practices for dealing with the problem, but I am referring to a time when there were no facilities to deal with the widespread practices that occurred. The people involved are now being diagnosed as suffering from the effects of asbestos. I suspect that in almost every case where work is now carried out on new buildings involving the use of asbestos almost all of the regulations have been obeyed. It would be incredible to believe that any contractor installing new equipment would disregard the regulations.

Mr. Allan Rogers: No.

Mr. Evans: I am speaking generally. My hon. Friend may wish to refer to a particular matter.
The Minister referred to the current problem of extraction. I wish to refer to a press article. I have warned the Minister of this fact. I also wrote to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), in whose constituency the yard to which I shall refer is located. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) also has constituents who work in the shipbreaking yard at Caern Ryan on Loch Ryan. The article to be published tomorrow in the magazine City Limits, makes a series of disturbing allegations about the activities taking place in the Caern Ryan yard.
I understand that the yard deals primarily with the breaking up of old warships. Hon. Members will appreciate that those ships contain a great deal of valuable metal, most of which is covered with asbestos in one form or another. The article alleges that the metal, which is covered with blue asbestos, is ripped out by hand or burnt off with oxyacetylene torches, and that the workers employed at the plant have virtually no protection. I understand that asbestos-covered plates, which have been burnt out of the inside of the old ships are often soaked overnight in the waters of the loch so that the seawater can wash the asbestos off the plates. A short time later the asbestos is washed up on the shore, dries out in the sun and is probably more lethal in that form than in any other.
I understand also that the workers are required to provide their own protective clothing and that there are no laundry or washing facilities at the plant. Consequently, the workers are obliged to take their working clothes home, thereby endangering their wives and children. Will the Minister read the article and investigate the allegations? If the allegations are correct, will he take the necessary action to ensure that this does not continue to occur?
I wish to deal with the role played by Government bodies and nationalised industries in this matter. I believe that the time has come when the Ministry of Defence, which is constantly scrapping old warships, should not palm them off to the first suitable tender from a subcontractor without giving any further thought to the matter, or worrying about the consequences of what


happens when the ship is broken up. Will the Minister take this up with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that it has regard to the problem?
Many old power stations are also reaching the end of their useful life and there have already been scandals relating to the stripping of those stations. Again, the CEGB as a publicly owned industry cannot pass off its responsibilities in this respect. The same applies to the clearing of old steelworks and the demolition of old schools in which asbestos was widely used.
With regard to the Government's responsibility in this I recognise the Minister's interest, but we cannot be satisfied that the Health and Safety Executive has enough inspectors to carry out the task. If work is carried out which contravenes the regulations, the sanctions must be penal. Otherwise, the people responsible will simply laugh at us and carry on as before, putting at risk not just their workers but workers' wives and children and local residents.
I assure the Minister that if he brings in legislation to deal with that problem he will have the support of the Opposition.

Mr. Cyril Smith: First, I should declare the fact that I own 1,300 shares in Turner and Newall Limited, — out of a total issue of 108 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] Hon. Members may say, "Shame!", but some of us believe in demonstrating in practical terms our confidence in the industries in our constituencies.
With regard to the EC directives on asbestos, I note that the Government's motion
welcomes the achievement by the Community
and also
the Government's success in reaching agrecrnent … without reduction in the standards of protection cf United Kingdom workers".
I am delighted to know that, but the motion is ironic in that the standards proposed for other EC countries are lower than those which will apply in the United Kingdom from 1 August 1984 and they will not apply until 1987.
That is my main criticism of the EC directives and the Government's attitude to them. The Government demand one standard from United Kingdom manufacturers but are willing to settle for a lower standard from EC competitors.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: I will not give way at this stage.
That is the attitude of a Government who are supposed to be competitor-conscious and biased towards British industry. I should make it clear that I am appealing not for any lowering of British standards but for an increase in the standards to be applied to our EC competitors. I urge the Minister to carry out the pledge that he has give today and to press strongly for the standards to be applied in the United Kingdom in 1984 to be applied throughout the EC at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Smith: The Minister referred to substitutes for asbestos. It is clearly necessary to ensure in producing such substitutes we do not produce a substance which is as great or even greater a danger to the health of those producing it as the asbestos products now being produced.

Mr. Rogers: When he talks about standards relating to the control of asbestos within the EC, would the hon. Member not agree that some of the 10 different member

states have much higher standards than those proposed in the directive? It is wrong to speak in generic terms of the EC. Standards in the Federal Republic of Germany are far in advance of the standards being proposed.

Mr. Smith: With respect, I do not agree with the basis of that argument. Even if it were correct, we are talking about directives to be introduced by the EC for EC member countries. Those directives are not of the standards that are to be applied to the United Kingdom industry as from 1 August 1984.
The House will recall that Yorkshire Television produced a film called "Alice: A Fight for Life". In that documentary Yorkshire Television told blatant lies about TBA Industrial Products Ltd, which has its factory in my constituency. It accused the company of withholding pages of evidence from the advisory committee on asbestos when the very pages that the company was accused of withholding were published by the Simpson committee in its findings.
That film would have been as good and as important if Yorkshire Television had chosen to stick to the truth, deal with the facts and attack the villains of industry rather than blatantly sensationalise a human situation which gives no joy to anyone. I hope that Yorkshire Television will behave more responsibly in future.
As a result of that film the Government set up two working parties under Acheson and Gardiner. After seeing the film and considering all the evidence put before it by Yorkshire Television the medical committee of that inquiry concluded:
we have not found any material which was available to the Advisory Committee on Asbestos which on reconsideration would have altered the conclusions in our previous report;
The conclusion of the previous report, I remind the House, was that the public at large are not at risk. None the less, the Health and Safety Executive, because of the film by Yorkshire Television, and the hysterical pressure that it was designed to cause — for political rather than industrial safety reasons, some of us may feel—decided that British regulations should be amended.
So, without reference to the House until tonight, it has been decreed that as from 1 August 1984 control regulations in the United Kingdom shall apply to a measurement of 0·5 fibres per millilitre or below, whereas the regulations for the EC, not to be introduced until 1 January 1987, will apply to anything below 1·0 fibres per millilitre but above 0·5. In other words, where the regulations leave off in this country, they start to apply in the rest of the EC. I emphasise that the EC will reach present British standards of what is considered safe in 1987.
Even when the directives are enforced, they will regulate for only half of the standard being demanded and implemented in the United Kingdom by the Health and Safety Executive. To reach the standards that the United Kingdom industry is expected to reach—I am surprised that the Minister did not refer to this—United Kingdom industry will be involved in millions of pounds worth of investment between now and August 1984. When the Minister refers to speeding up the programme, he should bear in mind the fact that the investment capital required by British industry to meet the regulations is already causing financial problems. To speed the process up further would cause even greater financial problems.
Although British industry will require investment capital, EC industries will not — and they are our


competitors. What is more, when those millions of pounds have been invested—it is right that they should be—it is likely that the rate of productivity will be slowed down as the machines will have to run more slowly, so as to produce less dust. If the Minister wants to protect British industry's competitiveness, it is important that he press for the same standards to be applied in the EC. Thousands of people are employed by the British asbestos industry and it is not true that the British trade union movement opposes the present position. That is certainly not true for shop stewards at TBA Industrial Products Ltd. in Rochdale. The Labour party cannot speak for the entire trade union movement on this matter.
I am delighted that United Kingdom asbestos workers are to be better protected than their EC counterparts, but I wish that the Government had also recognised the need to protect their jobs by objecting to the unfair competition that the directives create. The problem is that competition does not come only from the EC. It comes from other countries which practise virtually no dust control. I strongly hope that imports into the EC from such countries will be closely monitored.
It is widely recognised that blue asbestos or crocidolite is far more dangerous than white asbestos or chrysotile. The British industry has voluntarily banned the use of blue asbestos since 1970. It has not taken much credit for that. I agree with the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) that it is regrettable that the directives allow blue asbestos to be used in other EC countries, albeit only under certain special conditions.
In my speech to the House on 22 October 1981, c. 461 in Hansard, I expressed the hope that the Minister and the United Kingdom would press for the total banning of building asbestos throughout not only the United Kingdom but the whole of the EC. I am sorry that the Minister has failed to achieve that, assuming that he undertook to do so.
Article 8 is the best part of the directives. On this I compliment the Government because the article ensures a common European method of measuring airborne asbestos. As there will be a common measuring method, there will be standardisation and harmonisation. It is important to ensure that all laboratories engaged in such work shall become accredited laboratories and shall participate in regular cross-county exercises as advocated by the Health and Safety Executive and by the asbestos industry.
I welcome the proposals in article 12, especially those proposals that relate to personal protective equipment. In the United Kingdom respirators are approved by the Health and Safety Executive, but I am told by the industry that sensible agreements need to be reached between the executive and the United Kingdom companies on what is protective clothing and what is not, because of the diversity of sampling frequencies and variations in dust counts.
I welcome article 18, although it does nothing to help with the problem of positively identifying lung cancer or its causes. There is overwhelming evidence to prove that smoking by asbestos workers in asbestos factories can heighten the risk of cancer to those workers. I put forward a suggestion that would be welcomed by the employers' side of the industry and that the Minister might discuss with the trade union movement, which is seriously and

properly concerned about the health of its members. The trade union movement should join the employers in agreeing to ban all cigarette smoking in asbestos factories.
Paragraph 2(a) in annex 1 needs some clarifying, which I hope the Minister will provide. Does it relate only to finished products and/or asbestos sheet that may be contained in building structures — such as asbestos concrete roofs or lagging insulation? When it says "other forms" does that include other forms included in the production process? In the same annex 1, paragraph 3 needs some clarification as to what is "a danger to health". Again, opinions differ on that matter.
Nothing in these EC directives is exceptional. They ensure that what the United Kingdom industry is doing today in 1983, the rest of the EC will have to do from 1 January 1987. They also ensure that what the United Kingdom industry does from 1 August 1984, the rest of the EC can, if it wishes, get away with not doing. It perhaps proves again that, in the matter of the safety of workers, the responsible members of the United Kingdom asbestos industry are the teachers of Europe, not the learners.
None the less, the directives are a step forward for the EC, and that is to be welcomed. The standardisation of methods of measurement is particularly welcome. Asbestos is a dangerous substance. No one denies that. Anything that helps to protect the health of those who work with it, whether in the United Kingdom or anywhere else in the world, is to be welcomed.
In this country we have the highest regard for the work of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. They implement high standards, especially in companies of a particular size, where they are meticulous. We must now hope that member countries of the EC will be as diligent in applying the rules of these directives, and that United Kingdom Ministers will, as the motion says, pursue the
intention of seeking early agreement on further restrictions on the marketing and use of asbestos fibres.
The object of that pursuit must be to raise EC standards to United Kingdom standards, and thus protect the competitive capacity of the United Kingdom industry.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) will forgive me if I interpret his speech as being in some respects rather grudging of the advances that have been made in this country—although I do not accept that they are enough—simply because they are not matched by those made by some other countries in the European Community. I look forward to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), because he clearly knows more than I do about the regulations of other member states.
I accept that in some respects we are ahead of other member states, but we have taken a tremendously long time to get where we are now. For my constituents, that means generations. I had in my constituency the firm of Cape Industries. It was there for many years, and left in the 1950s. Still daily—I repeat, daily—we get cases of asbestosis among people who worked for or were associated with the firm. One hears of tragedy after tragedy. Nothing is too much, and no regulations are too severe, to counteract this disease.
We could not have had this debate 10 years ago, because it would have been incomprehensible to the


majority of people. Now the whole subject of asbestos and asbestosis is widely recognised. I welcome that, because we should not sweep such matters under the carpet. We should have them in the open, and decide in what respect our regulations are lax and should be improved.
The hon. Member for Rochdale defended the firms in his constituency and other firms of great repute in this country. What he is really saying is that they should have done something a long time ago. They may be disadvantaged by EC regulations, because the United Kingdom is further ahead and therefore the competition from Europe may be greater. However, if we had led the way earlier, five or 10 years ago, we should not be in this position today.
Asbestosis is not confined to workers in the industry. There are many "casual" workers connected with the industry who are discovering that they have it. Some of them may have worked at a firm producing asbestos or asbestos products for only two or three weeks five or 10 years ago, but they have discovered that they are at risk of contracting asbestosis.
Only last week a woman came to my surgery and told me that her brother had died a few months ago, having worked for one of the three firms that delivered material to Cape Industries before the second world war. After the war he left that employment to do something else and he had contracted asbestosis only relatively recently. His contact with the material was traced back to the years when he worked as a deliverer before the war. We should consider streamlining the regulations for no-fault compensation and for the benefits that come through the Department of Health and Social Security—I accept that this issue extends wider than the remit of the Minister's Department—so that it is simpler for ordinary folk to obtain the benefits which they deserve and which they should have, both during their life and, when they are dead, for their families.
The effect of asbestos on the environment is increasing in importance because of its use in buildings over the past 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years or more. Local authorities are having a difficult time in trying to come to grips with the problem when they acquire information about asbestos which has been used in public buildings and in housing which is under their control. It is unfair that authorities should bear the entire responsibility for the removal of asbestos — I appreciate that the matter does not lie directly with the Minister—and its replacement with other materials, especially where large-scale replacement operations are required. We have heard about the Wandsworth experience and I am s Ire that in my constituency and in many others there are large public buildings and housing estates that are full of asbestos. It should be removed, but the responsibility for so doing should not rest solely with the local authority. That applies financially and to the research that should be undertaken by the Government to enable authorities to carry out the work in the best possible way.
There is a road in the borough which is in my constituency—it comes within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) —in which the houses are owned by the London borough of Newham. Over the past years some of the houses have been sold to the tenants, who are now the owner-occupiers. The borough of Newham has decided to replace the roofs of the dwellings that it owns because they contain asbestos. I applaud the authority for taking that initiative.

The replacement work started recently. Those who have bought their houses from the London borough of Newham have applied for grants from the local authority in order to replace their roofs because they fear what might happen otherwise. Some of the houses in the road are privately owned and some are council owned. Thanks to the Labour-controlled London borough of Newham, the council houses are being done.
I shall not go into an argument about why the owner-occupiers bought their houses, because that is a matter for them. However, they have applied for a grant to do the same work. They have been refused, not because the London borough of Barking to which they applied is unwilling to give it to them, but because, apparently, the regulations do not recognise that asbestos is a dangerous product. Therefore, that must also be considered. It is no good just looking at the regulations affecting workers and saying how good the United Kingdom Government are. I accept that we are better than most EC countries, but the situation has now gone far beyond that. There s.tiould be an across-the-board departmental committee — perhaps there is already—to look at that whole issue.
Recently I came across a copy of a draft leaflet that was provided by the Department of the Environment and the
Welsh Office. It is headed "Draft 3". I suspect that it will be headed "Draft 99" by the time that it reaches the public. However, it is entitled "Information Note on Asbestos in Housing". It is for free distribution to the public. It was sent to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities for its consideration. It, in turn, quite properly sent it to its member local authorities. I am not involved in that sense, but I was given a copy because of my interest in the subject. The date in question is August or September of this year. The leaflet reads rather like "Protect and Survive". There is a very good description of asbestos. There is then a description of where asbestos is used in housing. It then describes the various types of asbestos-cement, insulating board, building materials and so on. The document then asks how asbestos products can be identified.
I remind the House that when the leaflet has been put into its final form, it is to be distributed to the public. It then tells the public what to do about asbestos building materials. This leaflet is being produced to send not to properly licensed contractors, but to ordinary people. It:
Asbestos materials which are sound and undamaged and not releasing dust can be left in place. Do not disturb them unnecessarily. They can be painted to prevent fibre release. Emulsion paint can be used on insulation board, but asbestos-cement needs an alkali-resistant primer. Do not rub down before painting.
If they are damaged or releasing dust the materials should be removed. If they provided fire protection, replace them with material of equal fire resistance"—
if one should know what they are.
Do not saw or drill asbestos material. If it is being removed … use a contractor.
Otherwise, and here we go—
Work outside if possible; open the windows if you have to work indoors; keep other people away from the work area; remove whole sheets or components—do not break them up; wet the material (provided there is no contact with electricity); do not work overhead; work gently and do not use power tools; spread a plastic sheet under the working area to collect the dust; clean up settled dust with a damp cloth and seal in a plastic bag whilst still damp".
So it goes on. At the end the leaflet suggests what should be done with the material collected up. It is to be put in


a strong plastic bag and the local authority is to be told to collect it. The buck is passed yet again, people having presumably been exposed to considerable risk.
I have delayed the House by quoting the leaflet because it is absurd. If we are even to consider issuing such a leaflet—which I have no doubt will be revised and made less absurd by the expert advice of the Association of Municipal Authorities and its member authorities—the Government should look beyond the rather narrow scope of the debate and set up cross-departmental committees. The Departments of the Environment, Health and Social Security, Employment and so on should get together.
The whole of the country — indeed, the whole of Europe—now understands the dangers of asbestos, not only at work but in the environment. I hope that the Government will put a jerk into their actions and ensure that people in future—we cannot guarantee those in the present—will be safe from this killer material.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: In some respects it is not inappropriate that the debate should follow our discussion on the Trade Union Bill. Some hard, and at times ill-informed, comments about trade unions were made today. It must now be said that the trade union movement has been consistently in the vanguard of the move to expose the murderous way in which asbestos has been casually treated.
I take this opportunity to praise the "Alice: A Fight for Life" programme which did so much to heighten public consciousness of the issue. The trade union movement has consistently pressed for stringent precautions to be taken in the handling of asbestos — not only in the manufacturing process but in the equally important construction and demolition industries.
Before being elected to the House I had the honour to serve the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union as a full-time officer in the northern region. Part of my duties involved industrial health and safety, and part common law matters. My union has encouraged and, perhaps more significantly, financed, pioneering legislation for asbestos-induced cancers. The northern region is justly proud of its part in that.
It is important to remind the House that the victims of asbestos-induced cancer are working people or their kin—people with no accumulated wealth, who could not have financed their own protracted, civil litigation against the wealthy multinational conglomerates that have caused them such terrible, cruel and, ultimately, fatal injuries. People in such circumstances can look only to their trade unions for support. There is no other institution in our society today that will take up a case for an ordinary, working person who has suffered such a terrible injury. Unions are justly proud of their fight for people who have been wronged. They have fought against the very rich and very powerful. That is a job that the trade union movement does alone.
The saddest job that I have ever had to do was to take responsibility for the involvement of the northern region of my union in asbestos-induced cancer common law cases. To watch healthy people wither away to skeletons before dying is absolutely heartbreaking. It is hard to tell a man who thinks that he is healthy—I see that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is leaving the Chamber. —

Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not leaving the Chamber, but simply taking my notes to the Attendant.

Mr. Brown: There is nothing twittish about dying of asbestos-induced cancer. It is hard to tell such a man that the union has obtained £70,000 for him. People are not fools. If they are given a large sum of money they realise that it is for a purpose. The saddest thing that I have ever had to do was to tell someone that we had got him a large sum of money. He burst into tears, not of joy but because he realised why he been given a large sum of money. He is now dead.
The most upsetting aspect of the common law side is a case in which the victim is dying and the insurance company, acting for the employers, deliberately delays proceedings because the compensation payment to a victim's next of kin is substantially less than to the victim himself. Insurance companies use that despicable tactic.
The regulations are important. Working people in the thermal insulation and construction industries, and indeed the general public, look to the House to prevent employers from causing industrial cancer. It is no use for the industry to pretend that blue asbestos is the dangerous one that is not used and that white asbestos is not nearly such a bad thing. It is a bad thing. We are talking about degrees, not absolutes, and the myth that white asbestos is gentle must be nailed. It is unsatisfactory that the main deterrent in the handling of asbestos should be the threat of trade unions taking common law cases on behalf of their members after the event.
Before I leave the issue of common law cases I should like to urge the House and the Minister to consider carefully the introduction at some future stage of no-fault legislation for the victims of asbestos-induced cancer. The difficulty of proving exactly when it happened, in what circumstances and whether the manufacturer rather than the employer at the time should be sued sometimes produces an unfair result for the victim. No-fault legislation is needed.
Do the regulations meet our purpose, which is to ensure the safety of workers and the general public? If we do not get this right, the licensing regulations will be a licence to kill and nothing else. I am sorry that the Health and Safety Executive has turned down the proposal of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union that Government inspectors should be supplemented by experienced worker-inspectors drawn from the industry itself. As that will not happen, will extra Health and Safety Executive inspectors be drafted in to enforce the regulations? Will there be fresh recruitment into the inspectorate? The policy will not work unless it is enforced. What attitude will be adopted to sanctions? There will not be prior inspection when licences are issued so may we have an assurance that any breach of the law will mean that the licence is revoked or, at the very least, that it will be revoked following a successful prosecution?
It is fairly easy at the moment to set up as an asbestos consultant. The industry has its rogues and they must be controlled. I was a little disturbed when the Minister said that a licence will be required for most work with asbestos. I may have misunderstood him, but if a licence is required for most work, for what work with asbestos will a licence not be required?
With the current staffing of the Health and Safety Executive there has been a shift away from the field-work


side of enforcing the law towards a rather more policy-making role of writing guidance notes about the law. That is worrying and I am told that it is having an effect both on health and safety standards and on the morale of the service.
There is the problem of the EC directive, which lays down duties that are currently triggered off only by an action level, to which the Minister referred, of 0·25 fibres per cc. That means that large sections of the asbestos manufacturing industry are exempt or are getting past some of the regulations, one of which is the duty to provide medical surveillance. May I have an assurance that those provisions will be firmly enforced?
There appear in the 1969 legislation a whole series of requirements which are called "practicable duties." I hope that those duties will continue to be treated as practicable ones and that the phrase "reasonably practicable" will not be used in its place. There is a fear, particularly on the trade union side, that some erosion is intended. While that could not be drawn from the Minister's opening remarks, perhaps he will say that that fear is unfounded.
The trade union side, particularly my union, has called for some time for an environmental control limit. Will that suggestion be adopted? The idea has received widespread support from, among others, the Institute of Environmental Health Officers and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. To talk of using the occupational control limit, which the Health and Safety Executive sometimes does when dealing with asbestos, is not fair, because that limit is not used by the executive in other areas; the executive itself says that it is not appropriate for, for example, carbon monoxide. I therefore appeal for a specific environmental control limit for asbestos.
Following the "Alice: A Fight for Life" programme, we were told that an advice booklet would be published. The current booklet, "Asbestos and You", is very much out of date. Consultations have taken place and I understand that drafts have been drawn up for a new leaflet about asbestos. When is it scheduled to appear?
A large number of public buildings, particularly schools and hospitals, have enormous amounts of asbestos in them. Some that has been there for some time is flaking and crumbling, and it is when asbestos deteriorates and turns to dust that it is at its most dangerous. Can the Minister say what financial assistance to local authorities and area health authorities is being made available to help them deal with the problems that they face?
The hon. Member for Rochdale rightly referred to the connection between smoking and asbestos-induced cancers. There is some evidence to show that smokers are more suspectible to contracting an asbestos-induced cancer if they are exposed to asbestos. We should be fighting for the right of a person, regardless of his job, to smoke if he wants to. In a free society that is a decision that grown-up people should make for themselves and it should not be said that only people who do not smoke should work in circumstances where they will have a slightly reduced chance of contracting an asbestos-induced cancer. The working environment should be made such that nobody faces that risk.

Mr. Max Madden: These directives come at a time when public awareness of the dangers of asbestos is acute. It should be remembered—it has been

said already, but I believe that the point hears re-emphasising — that all asbestos kills: blue, brown and white. It should be remembered also that it is a long time since the first warnings of the dangers of asbestos were given to the Government. The Home Office first received official warning of the dangers 77 years ago. Those of us who have taken an interest in these matters over the years know that multinational companies have considerable vested interests in the asbestos industry. They have sought to conceal and camouflage the dangers of all types of asbestos and spent enormous sums in trying to propagate the idea that asbestos is good and to ensure that claims for compensation are not brought into court or, if so, were settled out of court.
It is important that those of us who are worried should praise the investigative journalists of Yorkshire Television and elsewhere who have brought the dangers of asbestos to public attention and done much to give effect to the directives before us and bring the Government's action in recent years to fruition. Without those revelations, little would have been done—just as little had been done since 1906 when the Home Office was officially informed of the dangers of asbestos.
If we have any doubts about asbestos dangers, we should take note of what happened here. Some years ago, it was discovered that there were deposits of asbestos within the Palace of Westminster. Within days, action was taken to remove quickly and professionally all the asbestos that was found in the Palace. That is an example to the rest of the country.
I hope that no one will be prepared to accept any suggestion, from whatever quarter, that asbestos is anything other than an extremely dangerous substance that kills a great number of people. The latest figures show that in 1981 there were 246 fatalities from asbestosis and a further 421 deaths from asbestos-related cancers. It should be remembered that only one in three of the widows of those who died have received the industrial benefits to which they are entitled, and which at present amount to the princely sum of 55p a week.
When we examine the rosy messages which emanate from the Asbestos Information Centre Ltd., which over the years has spent millions of pounds propagating the so-called benefits of asbestos, we put the message into perspective and always err on the side of caution.
The directives apply to all workers who are exposed to a specified concentration of asbestos for more than four hours in a working week. As others have done, I urge the Minister to pay attention to those who come into contact with asbestos on a more casual basis—certainly not on the basis specified in these directives. There is considerable evidence to show that many of those who contract asbestosis and the related cancers are only casually exposed to asbestos dust. It is important for the Government to bear that in mind and to take action to account for the dangers to which many people are exposed when they come into contact briefly with small amounts of asbestos. We must remember that it is a progressive disease that does not show itself until 10, 15 or 20 years after exposure to relatively small quantities of asbestos over short periods.
My hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) mentioned compensation. It is important that the Government should move rapidly towards the establishment of a compensation scheme that is independent of the


pneumoconiosis medical panels. Many of us who have had contact with those panels are extremely dissatisfied with their composition, the way in which they carry out their diagnoses and the great meanness displayed in assessing disability benefit. I hope that the Government will ensure that independent compensation schemes are established so that those who contract asbestosis can speedily claim compensation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East suggested, it is important to move towards a no-fault compensation scheme. This would have the merit of providing compensation more promptly than is often the case today. We must also guard against such a scheme resulting in lower compensation payments being made than would otherwise be the case through individual claims. However, overall, the benefits of a no-fault scheme outweigh the disadvantages that are often alleged for such schemes.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Barking in urging the Government to do much more than they have hitherto in informing the public about the risk of contracting asbestosis from the environment. I join her wholeheartedly in urging the Government to make available funds to local authorities and others to deal with the considerable costs that often arise from combating asbestosis which comes from the environment. The Minister should tell the House what will happen with the dumping of asbestos waste if the Government proceed with their ludicrous plan to abolish county councils—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. We have had a wide debate and I have been patient, but the hon. Gentleman must direct his remarks to the directives.

Mr. Madden: I bear your cautionary remarks in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I think that I have said enough for the Minister to take my point. I should be grateful if he would write to me about this matter.
I am pleased that progress is being made in securing several alternatives to the use of asbestos. It is interesting that the CEGB has said that it will make no new use of asbestos, and that the police, who have been involved in trials with asbestos-free brakes, reported that such brakes last three times as long as asbestos-lined brakes. It is interesting that Turner and Newall have removed 80 per cent. of the asbestos used in textile production. I understand that Cape Asbestos Fibre Company Ltd. is no longer using asbestos in the United Kingdom, and that Eternit expects not to be using asbestos within five years. That shows that progress is being made, and offers an example to many other companies to pursue alternatives. I remind those involved that funds are available through the European social fund not only for securing alternatives but for retraining workers in the asbestos industry.
There should be no shred of complacency by the Government or anybody else. If it has taken 77 years to reach this point, we have every right to urge that action from here on in is extremely rapid and that enforcement is rigorously made. I urge the Government to ensure that there are sufficient factory inspectors to make enforcement a reality. The fines involved should be considerably increased from the present ones.
I welcome the directives, but I hope that no one in industry will use the arguments of the hon. Member for

Rochdale that industrial competitiveness compels industry not to make progress towards eliminating the use of asbestos or to adopt the standards set out in the directives. Those commercial arguments have been used for generations, so that working people's lives are put in danger. In the debate we must say that profits cannot come before the well-being and the lives of working people who produce the wealth of the multinational companies, which for generations have disregarded the dangers to which they have exposed the people who create their wealth.
I welcome the directives, and hope that the progress that has been outlined will be followed through rigorously by the Government. They are responsible not only to the hundreds who have died from this wretched substance over the years but to the hundreds who will die in the years to come.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The Minister said that the rest of Europe had failed to go as far as we would like. In many countries there are less strict regulations than in Britain. They owe much to pressure from asbestos manufacturing companies on the continent that have successfully fought off proposals before the EC to ban completely certain types of asbestos and tighten controls on others. Our regulations are lesser derivatives of the proposals before the EC.
That strengthens my view that the EC can come to agreements on only the lowest common denominator, which no one will argue with. While of importance to the House, the regulations should not be seen as a reason to stop the Health and Safety Commission and other institutions in British society from going further.
That view is backed up by the person who is to be the new chief scientist at the Department of Health and Social Security, Professor Ernest Acheson, who in August this year told the Government that there should be a complete stop to the manufacture and importing of asbestos. He has produced an atlas of cancer that analyses the areas in which cases of cancer are most prevalent. He compares the productive processes in those areas, for example, around ports and dockyards, where shipyard workers inhale large quantities of asbestos from lagging in ships. The map spotlights Barrow, where the incidence of one form of cancer is 17 times the national average.
Other black spots are Plymouth, Portsmouth, Chatham, Tyneside, Teesside, Merseyside, and Southampton, and the textile mills of Wigan, Rochdale and Leeds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) mentioned, the gestation rates for those cancers are so long that large numbers of people who worked at factories that closed 15 or 20 years ago are not expected to suffer from cancer until the mid-1980s. The factory in Barking to which my hon. Friend referred is a case in point.
The new chief scientist at the Department of Health and Social Security is calling not for a modification in the inhalation levels of fibrous substances which may be cancerous, of which asbestos is one but for a ban on the importation and manufacture of such substances.
One problem involves the views of Britain and the rest of the European Community. On 23 August the Health and Safety Commission made stringent recommendations, to which the Minister referred, for banning the importation and use in manufacturing processes of brown and blue asbestos. In what percentages are brown and blue asbestos still used? If the Minister cannot answer that question


immediately, perhaps he will write to me. I believe that 95 per cent. of industry does not use brown or blue asbestos. While the fact is welcomed, it means that the new rules will have little effect on the risks that still exist.
Recommendations have been put forward to halve the control limit for white asbestos, otherwise known as chrysotile. I want to establish how the levels are worked out. My relatively recent election to the House might belie the fact that I have some experience of asbestos. I worked, some years ago, in a factory that made brake linings not dissimilar to those referred to by the Minister. The factory also made linings for gearboxes for trains and for marine applications.
Five or six years ago a problem arose in that factory, which was a subsidiary of British Leyland. The drilling of the brake linings took place on the shop floor and the shop stewards tried to deal with the matter. Initially discussions took place about the provisions for more masks and goggles. The view seemed to be that it was the workers' fault that they had to deal with dangerous substances. The management finally agreed to install proper vacuum extraction equipment at the factory arid the fibres were removed from the manufacturing process in a relative safe manner.
Having examined the recommendations of the Health and Safety Commission, I sought to investigate the basis on which such levels could be assessed. To measure amounts of fibre as small as 0·5 fibres per millilitre is an extremely difficult task. That is the reason why people talk about eliminating the danger completely.
The Health and Safety Commission was responsible for producing the Simpson report, which states that the Committee has been unable to identify a threshold limit below which there is no evidence of ar, adverse effect.
The trade union movement has long campaigned for the abolition of any unsafe working practice which affects life or limb. If it is not possible to identify a threshold below which there is no adverse effect, despite the reduction in the fibre levels as recommended by the Health and Safety Commission, other evidence does not suggest that the current threshold will be sufficient in 10, 15 or 20 years to protect from cancer and asbestosis those workers who operate in such an atmosphere. Where do the figures originate? I am reliably informed that the limit as proposed by the Health and Safety Commission in August is half that proposed by the Simpson Committee a few years earlier. Those limits produced an acceptable risk of mortality of 1 per cent.
A recent article in Medical News states:
The figure of one dead worker in 10,000 has been used to set control limits for exposure to radiation — an excess mortality of 0·01 per cent. The asbestos industry has claimed that it would have to shut down if measures to reduce risk to 1 in 1,000 (0·1 per cent. excess mortality) were introduced. The acceptable risk is therefore taken as 1 in 100 (1 per cent. excess mortality)
—that is, the unnecessary death of one worker in every 100 as a result of the industrial process to which they are exposed.
That means that even if the recommendations described by the Minister halve the level recommended by the Simpson committee the exposure risk will still be one death per 200 workers. There are 20,000 people working in the industry, so one can quantify how many will die in future months and years, even with the improved standards.

I mention the youth training scheme not in an opportunistic way but because it is relevant to the debate. Last Wednesday I led a delegation to see the Minister responsible for the scheme at the Department of Employment. With me on that occasion was a young lad who had just left a training for life scheme in Brighton which had been closed down when it was discovered that the kids on the scheme were working with blue asbestos. Inspectors have now moved in to ensure that that does not happen again, but it strengthens the argument. It is essential that the Health and Safety Executive should inspect every scheme before any young person is allowed to go on it because if that can happen in Brighton there must be other examples in other parts of the country.
The Health and Safety Executive took on 30 new inspectors this year in the first recruitment exercise for four years, but that will do not more than reduce the number of vacancies not filled in the past 12 months. It will do nothing to replace the 200 factory inspectors and health and safety inspectors lost in the past three and a half years. However well intentioned the regulations and however much statistical evidence is produced to back them up, any proposal to halve the permitted fibre level or improve the conditions for workers will be effective only if it is backed by the professional expertise of the health and safety inspectors to force employers, who have traditionally been reluctant to take any initiative themselves, to take the necessary action.
A recent written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) about financial help to education authorities which wished to remove asbestos from schools stated that:
It is for local education authorities to order their priorities within the resources available to them." —[Official Report. 31 October 1983; Vol. 46, c. 283.]
What is the point in the House debating asbestos levels and the diseases caused by them as a national priority if the buck is passed to local councils, already working on restricted budgets and having suffered cuts in their funds, so that they have to choose between, say, keeping a nursery or a school open, keeping meals on wheels cheap or removing asbestos from a school in which children are at risk from asbestosis in the future? The Government have accepted that power stations must be checked and asbestos removed before disposal of the sites. The Government should take an equal responsibility for schools and other buildings in which asbestos is known to exist and ensure that its removal is funded without further penalising already hard pressed local councils.
In reply to a question by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) on 29 July about possible improvements in
methods of contacting and following up those who may have had earlier contact with recently discovered asbestos use
the Minister said:
There are no central agencies for making such contacts".
He was doubtful whether
practicable arrangements could be introduced on a general basis."—[Official Report, 29 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 651.]
Will the Minister tell us tonight whether that is reasonable, given the long period of gestation of diseases associated with asbestos—15, 20, 25 or 30 years? Of course, there will be practical difficulties in tracing people, but if it was say, Legionnaire's disease in a tourist centre, which received publicity, ways and means would be found to check. For instance, in breweries, private companies have contacted every cellarman and everyone who worked in


certain pubs and have had them X-rayed and checked for possible effects of asbestos. Because of the long period of gestation of asbestosis and cancer caused by asbestos only Government agencies have the records to contact everyone.
Any debate that discusses ways and means of improving the health and safety of working conditions in this country or in Europe is to be welcomed. Two things have emerged from the debate. Action is taken only when there has been pressure from a trade union movement which has been campaigning for decades, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said earlier, to eliminate such a danger, or when there has been publicity. It is no accident that the Health and Safety Commission has taken action in recent weeks following the Yorkshire Television programme, in the same way as it is no accident that it has made proposals to amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 following the "TV Eye" programme in July. Publicity and pressure from working people push the Government and firms to act.
The final responsibility for funding the removal of asbestos and following up those who might be affected must lie with the companies that have made millions of pounds of profit out of the exploitation of this product. It would be interesting to see the profit figures for, say, the past 10, 20 or 30 years of some of the firms that have been mentioned in the debate to quantify how much money is being made out of the use this substance when for 50 or 60 years it has been known from various reports that it is dangerous. The responsibility is clear. Those who have made blood money out of the deaths of working people should cough up and make the necessary arrangements to ensure that no more lingering deaths occur. That can come about only when the use of asbestos is banned and people are not forced to work with such dangerous substances.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Most of the points which I wanted to make have been covered by my hon. Friends. I am speaking partly in answer to provocation by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who made some outrageous remarks.
The debate has produced a synthesis of the problem of acknowledgement of diseases in the industry and the compensation that ought to accrue to sufferers. The problem of asbestos-related diseases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma have been identified and well known for a long time.
It is odd that the Minister has colleagues in the European Parliament who have bitterly opposed the introduction of the directive. I remember a conference in Brussels which the asbestos lobby and industries such as those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rochdale attended to tell us how nice and clean it was to work in the asbestos industry. The Tories turned up and supported the asbestos lobby's propositions. I am sorry for the Minister having to introduce this document when it was so vigorusly opposed by his colleagues on the other side of the water. That is not unusual. He might suggest to the leader of the Conservative party, in his other capacity, that she ought to get them into line.
The directive is only a first step. Asbestos will be banned and the vested interests of companies such as

Turner and Newall Ltd. will be trodden into the ground. It is a company that oversees asbestos production from the extraction from the ground to its being dumped on the unknowing consumer. The problem of people such as the hon. Member for Rochdale is that they have not woken up to the situation. While British asbestos producers have sat back and produced products that comprise asbestos, the Germans have, yet again, leapt well ahead of us in developing alternatives. We do not need asbestos to make any of the products in which it is now used. There are adequate substitutes for all of them. So long as the ostriches who keep their heads in the sand look after vested interests, the British economy will fall behind those of its European competitors.
Asbestos is yet another example of Britain losing its way in the race. I understand why the hon. Member for Rochdale feels strongly about retaining the industry but it is a great shame that those who control it did not wake up, find and market the effective alternatives before our EC competitors.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that less than half of the production of the company to which he referred is in asbestos? Is he further aware that it has spent millions of pounds on trying to find alternatives to asbestos and that it has for many years produced brake linings which contain no asbestos? It is absolute nonsense to suggest that only the French and the Germans are doing anything about alternatives to asbestos.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Rogers: I have finished, Sir.

Mr. Gummer: It will not be possible for me to answer all the questions raised during the debate, but I assure hon. Members that if there are any points that I do not cover I shall write to them and no doubt we shall have a long correspondence on a number of issues.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) teased me with some tendentious points, which I shall ignore—although I disagree with what he said about the Germans. It is difficult to compare one country with another. Everyone claims to be better at doing things and to have proper regulations. There is no doubt that the Germans were among those who insisted on the continued use of crocidolite. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was right in saying that we have higher standards than the Germans on a number of matters. The Germans have not done the things that the hon. Member for Rhondda claimed they had done. I only wish that the Germans had been prepared to go along the lines that we should have liked to go along on a number of issues. I assure the hon. Member for Rhondda that I shall continue to press to bring the regulations to the standard of toughness that he wants.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) to say that if we have something that we think is always dangerous, however small the amount of it in the air, there can be no standards. We have to do the best that we can and we have some tough standards, which are tougher than those almost anywhere else. Because of our measures, others are now following us.
The United States of America decided recently to bring in standards as an emergency measure almost immediately which will mean that it is also demanding a limit of half


a fibre a millimetere. The measure was published in the federal register on the fourth of this month, and will remain in force until the rules are permanently made into law. That shows that the action that the European Community took is having a major effect elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Rochdale should be pleased that one of our major competitors will be meeting standards akin to ours. He will no doubt agree that it is one of the great strengths of the European Community — I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East on this—that we are able to bring tremendous pressure to bear not only on those inside the Community but on others outside. Our action in the Community and the Community's actions internationally have resulted in considerable pressure on the United States.
Hon. Members asked me about the licensing regulations, and I am pleased to tell them that they were laid today, so we have done that as rapidly as we could. I am glad that even those who have doubts about whether we have been as successful as we might in bringing other members of the Community to the same level will agree that at least we are keeping ahead in protecting our workers.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I have so many points to answer that I shall not give way. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to cover in correspondence the matters that he wishes to raise. Nothing divides us in our desire to find answers.
The placing of crocidolite on the market and the use of this fibre and the products contained in it shall be prohibited. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) asked me to make this point clear, and I do so. The phraseology is nothing more than phraseology, not a means by which people can get round the articles. Article 12 on respiratory protective equipment will be approved by the Health and Safety Executive and no one else, and will have to meet stringent standards. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North made that point, as did the hon. Member for Rochdale. The article will ensure that some of the practices to which hon. Members have referred cannot take place within the law. I cannot guarantee that they will never take place, but we shall guarantee as much as we can.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said that the Home Office had known about the problems of laundering of clothes since 1909. Most of us have to be careful about hindsight, at which we are better than we are at judging what should be done at the time. Therefore, I shall not apportion blame, but the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Richardson) is right to point out the serious problem of wives laundering protective clothing. That has been a feature not only in this industry but in many others where protective clothing began to be used to improve safety. In certain cases it actually extended the danger outwith the working place in a way that was not expected. I think that the hon. Lady will accept that this is a serious problem, not only in her own area but elsewhere.
The Health and Safety Commission's approved code of practice on work with asbestos requires that employers send the worker's clothing to specialist laundries which are equipped to deal with asbestos contamination. That is part of the approved code of practice, and it will be enforced.

The hon. Lady was right to raise the matter. I am sure that the Health and Safety Executive pays a good deal of attention to it.
On the subject of exposure to asbestos and the time involved, the monitoring under the directive is over an eight-hour period. In the United Kingdom it will be over a four-hour period, which is a much stricter standard, but over and above that is an overriding requirement to reduce exposure to as low a level as is reasonably practicable for all workers. So it is not just a question of meeting the standards. In circumstances where it is possible to go beyond that, that will be expected and enforced by the Health and Safety Executive under the catch-all provision, which is an important part of our legislation, and which, as the hon. Member for Rochdale said, does not happen universally in the rest of Europe.
I support one thing said by the hon. Member for Rhondda. We sometimes talk as though the other countries in the Community are less concerned than we are. I have recently seen some of the attempts in France and Gerniany—I admit that this may not be true of Greece and other countries — where considerable efforts are made and where enforcement programmes and laboratory techniques are of a very high standard. It would be wrong for hon. Members to lead people to believe that this country has a superiority which makes us better than anyone else in all cases.
We shall press the rest of Europe to move into line with our rules. The industry has made progress during the past four years. It would of course be wrong to absolve all parts of the industry in all circumstances for actions or lack of actions. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East should occasionally accept that some people —not everybody, but some people — are not setting out to destroy the health of every worker in their businesses. He has a very narrow view of humankind, which is sad, particularly in an area where we try to find answers that we can all support. The emotive language that he uses is not always helpful.
Perhaps I may raise a point of accuracy. The hon. Gentleman suggested that in the youth training scheme it was because we did not have proper monitoring or enough inspectors, and so on, that people were exposed to danger, as in the case of the young people that he mentioned. In fact, the danger was discovered precisely by that monitoring, and it was discovered before the young, people were exposed to danger. The scheme was then stopped. It would be good if he were occasionally to congratulate the people who did the job properly, instead of constantly carping.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a minute. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why I think that. If he carps when he does not need to carp, people will not listen to him when he says something that matters. My view is that the people who spend their lives trying to make the system work should be congratulated when they get it right.

Mr. Nellist: On the point that the Minister raised, I will now say, if he wishes me to repeat it, that I welcome the stopping of that scheme and the intervention of professionally trained health and safety inspectors who saw the risk and removed the young people from it. However, my point was that it showed that the cutback in health and safety inspectors makes that less likely in other


schemes. We are not debating the YTS and it would be wrong of me to refer to it too extensively, but it is a fact that those who have been injured or who have died while participating in the YTS have been in places that have never been investigated because of the over-stretching of the Health and Safety Executive. As a result of the over-stretching of the factory inspectorate, they have never been checked for registration. The Brighton example is an illustration of how the system should work, but for every example that the Minister can bring of the system working I shall bring him 100 where it is not.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is probably exaggerating with his last word and his last sentence. It is not possible to inspect and overlook for 24 hours a day, or for the number of hours that a particular group is working.

Mr. Rogers: Why not?

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is possible to have an inspector in every work place for every hour of the day, he is asking for the impossible and for something that is bonkers. That sort of inspection does not take place in any other industry. It is not even found in the coal industry because every inspector has about two mines within his responsibilities and he cannot be at both at the same time. It is clear that he cannot be in every part of any one mine at the same time. I do not think that we want to be led down this garden path by Labour members. I am merely suggesting that it would be a good thing to give credit where credit is due so that when we have to attack we sound more convincing.
When dealing with the selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protection equipment, it is not merely a matter of saying that a particular piece of equipment is acceptable. We must try to improve the equipment because much of it is extremely uncomfortable and unpleasant to wear. This leads its users to be less careful with it than they should be. We are trying to introduce improvements.
The Central Electricity Generating Board came of its own volition to me as the Minister responsible to say that it would be prepared to ensure that no power station was sold until it had supervised the removal of asbestos. I hope that others will take a leaf out of that book and I think that the board should be given credit where it is due.
The breaking of ships has been discussed, especially HMS Ark Royal. I am aware of the issue because others have raised it with me previously. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), the Member for the relevant constituency, raised the matter with considerable speed once the facts became clear. The Health and Safety Executive has prosecuted successfully in this instance and has made numerous visits. It will continue to do so. Since my hon. Friend raised the matter with me I have kept him fully in touch. I shall continue to involve myself with the problem directly and personally. I shall certainly read the article to which the hon. Member for St. Helens, North referred, which I understand will appear tomorrow. I am impressed by his contact with the magazine in question. Perhaps he can slip me a copy shortly before it appears tomorrow. If there is any further information to give on anything that I do not know about, I shall chase it up as quickly as possible.
Under the regulations, large parts of asbestos factories will be non-smoking areas. I do not agree with the hon.

Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), because where we know that there is a proven extra danger—there seems to be increasing evidence that there is a considerable extra risk—it seems reasonable to ensure that workers do not smoke while working in asbestos factories, especially as we are trying to lower the risk all the time as far as we can. It seems not unreasonable to take that course and to ensure that there is no smoking in the factories. I am not sure that further discussion with the trade union movement is the way ahead now that no-smoking areas have been established in the arrangements.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we must put the health of the workers in those industries above everything else. Even if we cannot get others to come along with us as rapidly as we should like, we must make that decision. That will mean difficulties for the asbestos industry, and I accept that. In addition, there will be a resulting lack of competitive advantage. That is the price that has to be paid. However, I was determined to ensure that it would be paid, because in all honesty I could not see that we could demand less of the industry, given the health hazard.
The meeting that the hon. Gentleman asked for has now taken place between the officials of the Health and Safety Executive and representatives of the asbestos industry. We think we can overcome some of the special problems by the use of respiratory protection equipment, but if it costs money to protect people, that money may have to be paid. I do not think that the sum will be as large as the hon. Gentleman suggested in his worse moments, but we must accept that there will be a cost. We hope to minimise it without damaging the most important factor—the safety of the workers.
A question was raised about the ban on blue asbestos throughout Europe. I have sympathy with those who do not want us to run after the idea that if we get rid of blue asbestos, somehow or other white asbestos will not require attention. On the other hand, the ban on blue asbestos is valuable. We pushed for it, and it would be quite wrong to underestimate it merely because the industry has moved towards it of its own volition, without legislation. I was a bit sharp earlier with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, and he may say—and it is true—that the final banning comes only after we have phased out much of the material. Nevertheless, some material will be banned. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North asked whether the ban would mean that we kept out everything of that sort. I assure him that that is the intention, and that we shall watch the situation very carefully. The exemptions for the other member states are very few in number. We wish that there were none. We are not using them and we hope that very soon there will be none.
We are now introducing a quality control scheme for laboratories which undertake fibre counting. That has been set up and 90 laboratories are taking part. It will lead to a uniform standard of counting throughout the United Kingdom. That is quite right. We invented the system and got it right. We have converted the Americans and Canadians, and now the international system—and not just the European system—is based on our work.
The central reference laboratory set up by the advisory committee on asbestos is holding discussions with NATLAS—I very much dislike using that acronym, but it stands for the National Test House and Laboratory Accreditation Scheme — so that the quality control scheme will be part of the NATLAS accreditation. That


will ensure that in Britain such laboratories are properly accredited. From what I have seen of other EC countries, their laboratory accreditation schemes are quite effective. We shall certainly be looking at that side of things too in our discussions in the EC.
The hon. Member for Barking mentioned the removal of asbestos, particularly from public buildings, and the associated problems. I hope that she will accept that I cannot answer that point now. However, I shall certainly see what can be done, and I shall discuss the other points that she raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, as they come more within his sphere of responsibilities than mine.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East referred to a leaflet that has already appeared. However, a revised version of the booklet is to be published early next year by the Health and Safety Executive and that will bring it up to date. I wholly accept the pressure being put on me about resources. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Coventry, South East was kind enough to say that we are now recruiting inspectors. He suggested, however, that we were not recruiting enough. However, he should remember that the introduction of the SHIELD computer has meant that we are using our inspectors much more effectively, because we have a much better way of zeroing in on our needs. I am keeping a close eye on that matter. I am assured that there are sufficient inspectors to do the job.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West has had a long interest in the subject. He sometimes sounds as if he is fighting hard to get me to listen to him. He is pushing an open door. I will examine his point about a no-fault, independent compensation scheme.
Waste dumping is not a matter for me, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is informed im writing of the Government's plans in that area. The term "multinational company" is not necessarily a term of abuse. Many multinationals try to do their job properly. I am sorry that he feels that he must always attack them. Many people owe their livelihoods to the efficient, effective and sometimes extremely good safety records of multinationals. If, in the long-distant future, he were to do my job dealing with health and safety, he would find that some of those with the highest standards in health and safety are the multinationals. It is a pity to lump them together in a general way.
On the exemptions from licensing regulations, the hon. Gentleman was quick to point out that I had said "in almost all cases". There were only two exceptions which, for

want of time, I did not cover. I refer to small-scale work of less than one hour. If, for example, a plumber has to move a piece of asbestos to do a job which might occur only every two years or so, it would not be sensible to insist on a licence. The other case is where work is on employers' premises, using their own workers, for one-off jobs. Those must be notified, and the details of precautions to be taken are then given. A licence would not necessarily be needed for that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, should we need to extend the licensing regulations, we shall do so. We felt that we must first cover the important danger areas. Principles and practice in the approved code of practice on asbestos insulation and coating would have to be complied with in those circumstances. People cannot work without proper regulations.
I do not believe that, however careful we are, however tough the regulations are and however much we can bring our colleagues in the remainder of Europe together, we will remove the problem of asbestos easily. II is all-pervasive. We must watch for it everywhere. We must be careful about our solutions.
The hon. Member for Barking suggested that asbestos should be removed in all circumstances. I cannot comment on her specific examples, but sometimes it is best not to remove it but to seal it. Those are technical matters. It would worry me if we suggested to the public that the only way to deal with asbestos was to remove it. I hope that we shall not frighten people when it is best to seal it. I shall write to the hon. Lady on that matter and the other points that she raised.
If, after a reasonable lapse of time, any hon. Member has not received a written reply to points that I have not covered in the debate, I hope that he will contact me.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9369/82 for a Council Directive amending for the fifth time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations, and of the Explanatory Memoranda of 14th April 1983 and 3rd November 1983, and of European Community Document No. 10664/82 for a Council Directive on the protection of workers from the risks due to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents at work; asbestos, and of the Explanatory Memoranda of 14th April 1983 and 3rd November 1983; and welcomes the achievement by the Community of a large measure of harmonised control in this crucial area, and both the Government's success in reaching agreement on these directives without reduction in the standards of protection of United Kingdom workers and the Government's intention of seeking early agreement on further restrictions on the marketing and use of asbestos fibres.

Newspapers (Stockport)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I should like at the beginning of this Adjournment debate to apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister of State because I think that he has had quite an exhausting day. I do not know how many speeches he has made already, but I am sorry that I have landed him with the burden of replying to his Adjournment debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue because it allows me to highlight the way in which the National Graphical Association, in defiance of the law, is creating serious difficulties for a small firm in the north-west of England.
The Messenger group of newspapers originated in my constituency in 1974 as a free newspaper and employed at that time only four or five people. Because the paper was a success it expanded into other areas in the north-west. In the early days the newspapers were printed in Carlisle but in the period 1979–80 the Messenger group formed a subsidiary known as Fineward Ltd., based in Stockport. In January 1980 the newspaper was in negotiation with the National Graphical Association regarding representation by that association of Fineward employees. In February 1980 formal agreement was reached. Unfortunately, Fineward did not progress as expected and there were difficulties with the National Graphical Association. In fact, on 26 November 1981 the management wrote to the Stockport branch of the National Graphical Association stating its concern at the association's attitude, as a result of which the Messenger group decided not to expand its typesetting division at Fineward. In 1981 the Messenger group also expanded in the Bury area, and to service the Bury publication a subsidiary was formed, called Complete Artwork and Phototypesetting Services Ltd. or CAPS. That did for the Bury paper and for the increased production of the rest of the group what Fineward did at Stockport.
From this modest start in 1974, when there were only four or five employees, the Messenger group now employs about 120 people. A small firm, which started in that way and has built up the number of people it employs at a time of high unemployment should be encouraged.
The dispute with the National Graphical Association seems to stem from the opening of the operation at Bury. There were discussions with the west Pennine branch of the NGA and on 25 March 1982 the production manager at CAPS signed a brief document on NGA notepaper which was headed:
Undertaking to be given by companies making application for interim recognition by the NGA.
At the beginning of April 1982 the production manager wrote again to the branch secretary of the west Pennine division of the NGA advising that his company would not be going ahead with NGA recognition at Bury. The reason given was that he had been advised that whatever terms applied at Fineward would have to apply at Bury. Knowing the problems at Fineward the Messenger group was not prepared to risk similar problems at Bury.
The west Pennine branch was aware of the position because the secretary of the branch wrote a letter dated 23 August 1982 in which he referred to the production

manager of CAPS as having signed a recognition agreement. I am led to believe that that is untrue and that the only document signed was the undertaking to which I have already referred and which had been cancelled by the company at the beginning of April 1982. It should also be noted that the west Pennine branch of the NGA was all too well aware of the difficulties being experienced at Fineward.
The union's demand was that the Messenger group would have to agree to an arrangement whereby at least 50 per cent. of the existing employees became members of the NGA, that the group would recognise the NGA as the appropriate union to negotiate terms and conditions, that all future employees would have to become members of the NGA—in other words, a post-entry closed shop arrangement—and that all vacancies for staff would be notified to the appropriate NGA branch, which would put forward persons from its unemployed list to fill those vacancies. Only if it had no one on the unemployed list would the company be entitled to appoint other persons to work at Bury or Warrington and such persons would have to join the NGA on entering employment.
Those terms were considered by the Messenger group, which had a closed shop agreement at Fineward Ltd. and which had no objection to employees joining a trade union if they wished. The company decided to let its employees at Bury and Warrington decide whether to join a union, and at that time it gave the NGA the opportunity to put its case. In the event, the employees decided against joining the NGA.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been greatly involved in the matter as the constituency hon. Member, but as one who is sponsored by the National Graphical Association I feel it only fair to point out that the association has a different view and is of the opinion that Mr. Shah embarked on this course of action with the aim of establishing non-union shops in the area. The association believes that Mr. Shah entered into agreements and then broke them; not only broke them, but sought to avoid any of the consequences of those breaks by refusing to participate in discussions and by refusing to accept any of the conciliation services of ACAS.
For the hon. Gentleman to attack the NGA in this way is to question the whole basis of industrial relations in the print industry in that part of north-west England, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has been engaged in trying to find a solution to the problem. The kind of attack being made tonight on the NGA will not contribute to the early resolution of what is a difficult situation.

Mr. Montgomery: If the hon. Gentleman had waited until I had completed my remarks—and I have some harsh remarks to make about the NGA because I believe that what it is doing is illegal—he would have heard me deal with that. If the NGA is anxious to find a solution to this dispute, it must stop the intimidation, which is going on outside the offices of the Messenger group.
Further meetings between the company and the union took place, but to no avail. On 4 July, 1983 the NGA notified its members at Fineward of the dispute and told them to withdraw their labour. After six weeks, the NGA realised that the dispute was not having the effect that it had hoped. The newspapers were still being published,


circulated and read by the people in the areas they covered, and at that time the NGA called on members of the National Union of Journalists employed by the Messenger group to refuse to submit copy to editorial staff. That resulted in the company issuing proceedings against the NUJ, and it obtained an injunction against the NUJ on the basis that the inducement to break contracts was illegal. Nine NUJ members have refused to cross NGA picket lines, but 14 other journalists employed by the company have joined another union. It is worth stressing—and this proves the point against the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about anti-trade unionism—that until the NGA-NUJ disruptive action, the Messenger group was one of the few weekly newspaper operations that had a closed shop agreement with the NUJ.
The present situation is causing great distress to employees of the Messenger group, who are having to cross picket lines to get to work. I there fore hope that the Minister will be able to give some indication of how ACAS can resolve the dispute.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Demon and Reddish): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Montgomery: I am sorry, but no. The hon. Gentleman came to me before the debate and asked if I would allow him to intervene. He knows the rules and that I am on a tight schedule.
I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister will give an indication of how ACAS can resolve the dispute. The Messenger group has always recognised—

Mr. Bennett: May I tell the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Montgomery: No, I will not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue to rise and so take time out of the debate.
The Messenger group has always recognised a trade union when its employees have wanted that. I cite as evidence of that the case of Fineward and the NGA, and the closed shop agreement with the NUJ, to which I have referred. In a democracy individuals have rights also. In the Messenger group a large number of employees have shown that they do not wish to join the NGA. Surely that is their right, and one which should be upheld by the company.
The union clearly sees this dispute as an opportunity to challenge the law of the land and to turn the fight against one small firm into a battle against the Government's trade union legislation. The circular of the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades dated October 1983 states:
Re-Messenger group newspaper
Following the successful meeting which was held at the New Century Hall on Thursday, 27th October 1983, it has been agreed that the joint Manchester Branches of SOGAT 82 will hold a mass meeting outside the premises of the Messenger Group Newspapers, at 10.00 a.m. on THURSDAY, 10TH NOVEMBER 1983. The address of the Messenger Group Newspaper is".
The newsletter of the Manchester branch of the National Union of Journalists of November 1983 is headed:
Picket plan will defy Tebbit law at Stockport".
The article stated:
The recognition dispute at the Stockport Messenger, which has already lead to the NUJ being judged in contempt of court, is poised to become the focus on an all-out attack on the Government's anti-trade union legislation.
The article further stated:
A programme of action will begin on November 1st, with a mass picket of the Fineward offices, Wellington Street, Stockport, starting at 7 a.m. This will be followed by pickets at Bury and Warrington on November 2nd.

Mr. Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as we earlier agreed. My constituents are now faced by the picket line, after having taken part in a ballot in which they unanimously rejected the closed shop. I have seen this at close hand., having spoken yesterday to an employee, and I know that the employees do not regard that as the best way for the union to go about making friends and influencing people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Member may not make a speech. He is just intervening during a speech, as I understand it.

Mr. Burt: I make just this point. It is extraordinary that today we face a dispute in these terms, bearing in mind that legislation has been passed, but principally that the employees had taken part in a ballot and had decided unanimously to reject a closed shop. Yet we still find the National Graphical Association taking this action.
It is clear from the fact of the employer's granting permission to conduct the ballot that there was no intention to go for an anti-union shop. I speak on behalf of my constituents. I want to see this dispute settled reasonably. The political overtones being introduced by the National Graphical Association are not contributing to an improvement of the position.

Mr. Montgomery: I thank my hon. Friend because what he said is true. The unions have organised illegal pickets at Bury, Stockport and Altrincham, where the Messenger group has offices. The law maintains that it is right for a reasonable number of employees who are members of the NGA—they total six—to picket at Fineward, but I believe that it is illegal for the NGA to subject the staff and potential customers of the Messenger group to excess harassment and the abuse that has been hurled at them by people purporting to represent the NGA. It is worth mentioning that all Messenger group employees, whether or not they are NGA members, have always enjoyed terms and conditions that are certainly not less favourable, and in many respects are superior, to those negotiated nationally by the print unions. That is the case, even if no notice is taken of the profit-sharing scheme that is operated by the Messenger group.
It is worrying that the NGA, in its official journal of November 1983, makes it clear that it intends to defy the orders of the court in this dispute with the Messenger group. It appears that this small newspaper group is being made a pawn in the aims of the print unions to challenge the law of the land and to re-establish their dominance of the print industry and its employees. The tactics employed by the Messenger group seem to show the NGA's anxieties about what could happen if employees are allowed to make their own choice about union membership. The Messenger group employees in Bury and Warrington have made it abundantly clear that they do not want to join the NGA. The NGA is not prepared to accept that decision. It would seem that the NGA would rather see its members and other union members kept out of work, in breach of their contracts of employment than face the prospect of a comparatively small company, in the context of total union membership, successfully producing newspapers. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I were in Parliament when the Conservative Government legislated in 1980 and 1982 to give employees the democratic freedom that the Messenger group is anxious to afford to its employees. The NGA seems anxious to deny that right to any worker in the


print industry. The NGA contends that the Messenger group had an agreement with the association and suggest that it had broken that agreement. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). The only agreement that the Messenger group had with the NGA was at Fineward, and the NGA chose to break that agreement.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Montgomery: I shall not give way. At no time did the Messenger group have an agreement with the NGA, apart from the week commencing 25 March 1982, when there existed an undertaking given on behalf of CAPS when applying for interim recognition by the NGA. As the NGA was clearly aware, further discussions on recognition by CAPS were aborted by the letter written at the beginning of April 1982.
So we come to the present position. Yesterday there were 50 pickets outside the Stockport office. Today, Wednesday, the company expects a mass picket by NGA branch officers from all over the country; and on Thursday there will be a mass meeting organised by SOGAT outside the Stockport office. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me about the prospects of a meeting with ACAS. I do not believe for a moment that the Messenger group will negotiate under duress. If the unions would withdraw the mass pickets and stop the harassment of employees and customers the way would be clear for the two sides in the dispute to meet ACAS. I hope that my hon. Friend can give me some reassurance about that when he replies.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery), and I share his concern about the dispute. My background is in the industry, and what saddens me is that his story is one which anyone with experience of the industry must take seriously. There is no doubt that methods have been used and tactics employed in the printing industry which would not stand much investigation and would not run well if taken in the context of some of the speeches that we heard from Opposition Members this evening. Several aspects of the industrial action taken in the dispute have been the subject of legal proceedings, some of which may ultimately lead to enforcement in the courts. A case concerning damages is also pending, and the House will understand if I do not comment on the detailed legal arguments involved in those proceedings.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to examine what is at the root of the dispute. Let me say straight away what the dispute is not about. It is not about the willingness of the employer to allow employees to become and remain members of a trade union. My hon. Friend said that people working for this employer have been members of trade unions and continue to be so. The employers have made it clear that they have no objection to individual employees taking up union membership. Indeed, it would be strange if they did, since many employees were already in the union when the dispute began.
Nor is this a dispute about trade union recognition, despite the fact that the NGA has repeatedly used the term

"recognition agreement" to describe the sort of agreement that it wishes to achieve. A recognition agreement is an arrangement between an employer and one or more unions that they will be recognised for the purposes of the negotiation of terms and conditions of employment for certain employees. But, except in the curious language used by the NGA, it is totally different from a closed shop agreement, under which all employees are required to belong to the union. I use the words "curious language" because that is what lies at the heart of the dispute. When the NGA speaks of a normal recognition agreement, it means a closed shop agreement. It does not mean what anyone else means by a recognition agreement. A recognition agreement is an important concept in industry—one which I wholly support and was fully in favour of in the industry in which I worked.
Therefore, the NGA must use the word that everyone else uses. It appears to be attempting to force a closed shop agreement on certain companies in the Messenger group under threats of industrial action and blacking, although the people working in those companies do not wish to have a closed shop agreement. If that is true, that is most worrying. It means that a union would use its power to make people join it when they do not want to. That is a difficult concept in a democracy.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has not had the courtesy to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) for time to intervene.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is customary in the House for us to debate issues and, if points are raised in the debate, for hon. Members to respond to them. We do not have to anticipate those points, particularly if they arise in the Minister's speech. I accept that it is necessary to inform the hon. Member who has the Adjournment that one wishes to speak, but one should be able to intervene.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman knows that Adjournment debates are peculiar to the hon. Member who is fortunate enough to win the ballot.

Mr. Gummer: This is not a case of an employer resisting the demands of his own employees for a closed shop agreement.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way. I have many answers to give my hon. Friend who raised the matter.

Mr. Bennett: Stick to the facts.

Mr. Gummer: I am sticking carefully to the facts.

Mr. Bennett: Anti-union people.

Mr. Gummer: This is not a case of an employer resisting the demands of his own employees for a closed shop agreement. The Government do not like closed shops, but they do not set out to abolish them. If employees in large enough numbers want to have a closed shop, that is, and will continue to be, legal. During the dispute a secret ballot has been held of the employees concerned.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way as I have a great deal to say in a few minutes.


During the dispute a secret ballot has been held of the employees concerned. The result, as I understand it, was a unanimous vote against the introduction of a closed shop into the companies in the Messenger group where a closed shop is not already in force.
The NGA chose to ignore that clear demonstration of the employees' wishes and, thwarted in its aims, it unleashed a panoply of actions, including blacking, secondary picketing and so-called "sympathetic action", designed to force the employers to submit to the union's will. If ever there was a case of the unacceptable face of trade unionism, this appears to be it. The NGA must explain itself much more effectively than it has up to now.
The Government object to the closed shop in principle. We believe fundamentally that it is the right of every employee to join a trade union if he wishes. We have substantially strengthened that right in our Employment Act 1982. I believe strongly that a man has every right to join a trade union. No one should stop him. However, he should not be forced to join a trade union. The law is clear on that matter. We have given strong powers against the denial of jobs on the grounds of membership of a trade union.

Mr. O'Neill: That is what happened in Carlisle.

Mr. Gummer: We are not talking about Carlisle. We are talking about the Messenger group in my hon. Friend's constituency.
We also believe fundamentally that it should be the right of every employee not to join a trade union if he decides not to do so. That is why, while recognising the impracticability of outlawing the closed shop entirely, we have provided major safeguards in the Employment Act 1980 and the Employment Act 1982 for those who are forced to work under closed shop arrangements.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale knows. we especially deplore attempts to enforce the closed shop by the back door through threats of blacking and other industrial action against employers who refuse to impose closed-shop working on their employees. I also deeply deplore any employer deciding that he will not employ somebody because of that person's trade union membership.[Interruption.] That, too, is deplorable, but Labour Members must face the facts of this particular dispute and I very much hope that they will do so.
We therefore took action in the 1982 Act to deal with trade union action against non-union or non-closed-shop firms. As a result of the Act, a trade union which organises or threatens industrial action such as blacking by the employees of one employer will certainty have no legal immunity and hence may face legal proceedings if the action is taken because employees of another employer are not union members or because that other employer does not recognise a trade union. That provision is in addition to the other provisions in the 1982 Act which effectively remove a trade union's immunity when there is no dispute between an employer and his own work force in the first place.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: It would be unfair to the hon. Member who raised the matter if I gave way.
Moreover, the 1982 Act removes immunity from a trade union which organises or threatens industrial action to induce an employer to enforce union-labour-only

requirements on contractors. It thus makes generally unlawful, for example, action taken to force an employer not to enter into a contract or to terminate an existing contract with another company on the grounds that the other company employs non-union labour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Atrincham and Sale asked what will be done about this particular case. It is suggested that because the unlawful industrial action is apparently still taking place the legislation is not proving effective, but I must point out that it is for the employers to decide when it is right to embark on enforcement proceedings. It is for the employers in this case to make up their minds. So far, they have stayed their hands in a number of these areas.
I hope very much that ACAS will be able to find a way through this. ACAS has been involved since the outset. It managed to organise a joint meeting between the union and the employers on 26 August, but regrettably that meeting did not bear fruit. I understand, however, that ACAS has now made arrangements for meetings to take place on Thursday 17 November.

Mr. O'Neill: The management is refusing to attend.

Mr. Gummer: I must therefore agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend's condemnation of the patently unlawful picketing organised by the unions involved.

Mr. O'Neill: That is irrelevant.

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman thinks it irrelevant to a meeting that large numbers of pickets are outside the works he does not understand what the meeting is supposed to be about. Surely it would be far more sensibly held not under duress.
I mention two points about the law on picketing under our legislation. First, although it is for the police to deal with violent or unruly picketing under the criminal law, the recommended limit of six pickets per entrance in the picketing code of practice will be taken into account by the civil courts in deciding whether the purpose goes beyond peaceful persuasion and into, say, intimidation or obstruction.
Secondly, where picketing does not comply with the provisions of the 1980 Act—for example, if it is away from the pickets' place of work or goes beyond peaceful persuasion—immunity is removed from the organisers if the pickets interfere with contracts, including commercial contracts.
Furthermore, the general position is that if a union has organised picketing in contravention of an earlier court order, the employer may complain to the court. If the court upholds the complaint, it may impose penalties on the union for contempt of court.
All this is not as it should be, however, because the court should not have to be brought into the matter. As at least one Labour Member seems to have close connections with the NGA, I should say this. I am sure that the Opposition will agree that the best way to find the answer to this problem—

Mr. O'Neill: rose—

Mr. Gummer: —is by getting the employers and the employees to decide what they wish to do and for the union to have discussions with the employers. I understand that the employers are willing to do this and that a meeting has been fixed for next Thursday. I am sure that it would help


that meeting a great deal if the employer did not feel that the presence of a large number of pickets constitued harassment—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr.DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past One o'clock.